

GasslX 


i—^ sJ 

/ v J 

\ q i 

yv 

JL 

l \ i 

> Nj 
























































CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H..THAYER 


HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 


S, . HOUSE^OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS 
First Session 


ON 

CHARGES OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS[]MADE 
AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER, JUDGE OF THE 
UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA 
AT SHANGHAI, CHINA 


INCLUDING EXHIBITS 






WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1913 








JK\'= c l c i 

.C 5^5 

l^»3 





















c<< 

* 


c < 




i- 

< 

< 

t 

c 





#3 • - * "i ' , 


■ i * 






* 










HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 


Committee on Expenditures 

in the Department of Justice, 

House of Representatives, 
Monday , September 15 , 1913. 

The committee this day met, Hon. Robert F. Broussard (chairman) 
presiding. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen of the committee, this committee is 
without a clerk, but Mr. Curtis, who is an American citizen tem¬ 
porarily residing in Shanghai, China, where he practices law before 
the United States courts established there by our Government under 
treaty with the Government of China, has been here for a long time 
awaiting an opportunity to present a matter affecting the expendi¬ 
tures of that court, its method of handling business, and other mat¬ 
ters pertinent to the jurisdiction of this committee. There being a 
majority of the committee present, if it is the desire of the committee 
we shall proceed with his examination, letting my secretary act, as he 
has heretofore done, as clerk of the committee. 

Mr. Fergusson. I move that we proceed as suggested by the chair¬ 
man. 

(The motion was agreed to.) 

The Chairman. I think it may be proper to put in the record sec¬ 
tion 42 of the Rules of the House of Representatives to show under 
what jurisdiction the committee proceeds in this matter. 

(Said rule follows:) 

The examination of the accounts and expenditures of the several departments 
of the Government and the manner of keeping the same; the economy, justness, 
and correctness of such expenditures; their conformity with appropriation laws; 
the proper application of public moneys; the security of the Government against 
unjust and extravagant demands; retrenchment; the enforcement of the pay¬ 
ment of moneys due to the United States; the economy and accountability of 
public officers; the abolishment of useless offices; the reduction or increase of 
the pay of officers shall all be subjects within the jurisdiction of the nine stand¬ 
ing committees on public expenditures in the several departments, as follows: 

******* 
STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE F. CURTIS. 

The Chairman. What is your occupation? 

Mr. Curtis. I am an attorney at law, practicing before the United 
States courts at Shanghai, and, by courtesy of the other nations, I 
practice before the international courts in Shanghai, before the Brit¬ 
ish supreme court, and courts of the various nations, as well as before 
the consular courts. 


3 



4 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


The Chairman. How long have you been practicing before those 
courts ? 

Mr. Curtis. I went out there in 1902. I was admitted to practice 
before the then United States Consular Court, which has since been 
superseded by the United States Court for China, and I have been 
practicing there continuously ever since, with the exception of a trip 
I made here in 1905 to lay before Congress certain charges of the 
grossest corruption against the then consul general and consular 
officers. Those charges are embodied in a report made during the 
Fifty-ninth Congress, first session, House Document No. 665, which, 
report was printed upon resolution introduced by Hon. John Sharp 
Williams, of Mississippi, then a Member of the House, on the 8th of 
March, 1906. In response to that resolution President Roosevelt 
transmitted the report made by H. D. Peirce, Third Assistant Secre¬ 
tary of State, on his trip to the Orient on an inspection of the con¬ 
sulates in those countries. The result of those charges was that Mr. 
Goodnow resigned under the charges. 

The Chairman. Who was he? 

Mr. Curtis. The consul general at Shanghai. And the consular 
officials under him resigned—they either resigned or were dismissed— 
and there Avas a reorganization of the consular service and the crea¬ 
tion of a United States Court for China. 

If I may be permitted to proceed, Mr. Chairman, I will state that 
this court exists in China by virtue of treaties with China and by 
virtue of the act of June 30, 1906, set forth in Thirty-fourth Statutes 
at Large, page 814. It is a court of exceedingly limited jurisdiction; 
it has no probate jurisdiction, no divorce jurisdiction, and by treaty 
it has only jurisdiction over citizens of the United States in China 
and not citizens outside of China. 

The first judge of this court was Mr. Wilfley, of Missouri. He 
had been in office but a short time before charges of gross corruption 
were preferred against him. I had nothing to do with those charges, 
but under the charges he was compelled to resign. There was an in¬ 
vestigation by the Judiciary Committee of the House, and that com¬ 
mittee decided that he was at least temperamentally unfitted for the 
position of judge. Thereupon, Mr. Thayer, who was for a long time 
a clerk in the Treasury Department, was appointed. 

The Chairman. Is he a lawyer? 

Mr. Curtis. Well, he studied two years at one of the night schools 
here—the Columbia Law School—between 1871 and 1872, but he was 
appointed as a clerk in the Treasury Department and remained in 
that department for 13^ years. 

Mr. Hart. Was he a lawyer when he was appointed judge? 

Mr. Curtis. He had been admitted to practice in 1872. 

Mr. Hart. In the District? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hart. He was admitted to practice before the Federal courts ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes; but he remained in his position as clerk in the 
Treasury Department 13 years after being admitted to practice, 
and had no opportunity whatever to exercise his profession or to 
practice and gain experience. After he resigned from the Treasury 
Department, during Mr. Cleveland’s first administration, he was a 
elerk in several other offices here in Washington, and then went into 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


5 


partnership for the practice of law. He formed a law partnership 
and practiced before the departments and the Court of Claims. 

Mr. Thayer went out to China, and he landed there about the 
middle of March, 1909. Before three months had passed he had 
left China and went to a place called Rokkosan, about 7 or 8 miles 
back of Kobe, Japan—up in the mountains—where he leased a 
bungalow and remained until fall, leaving no one to attend to the 
business of the court at Shanghai, and leaving the inferior court, 
the United States Consular Court, which has a jurisdiction up to $500 
gold, and a criminal jurisdiction as to offenses for which imprison¬ 
ment of 60 days may be imposed, in charge of a young man who 
never studied law, who had never been in a law office, and who knew 
nothing whatever about law. He was empowered to hold for trial 
any citizens of the United States who might be brought before him 
on charges made by any irresponsible person. The court had de¬ 
cided that citizens of the United States were not entitled to a grand 
jury or trial by a petit jury, and so- 

The Chairman. What court had decided that? 

Mr. Curtis. The United States Court for China. 

The Chairman. Do you mean the particular court you are speak¬ 
ing of? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Hart. But the writ of habeas corpus would apply there the 
same as here? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes; it would apply, but it has been denied by the 
court. The judge, while in Japan, received his salary on vouchers 
which were dated and purported to have been signed at Shanghai, 
China, not in Japan, and on those vouchers his salary was paid. The 
charges are set forth in my first specification, which I would ask the 
committee to please insert in the record because it is rather volumi¬ 
nous. 

During the first and second years at Shanghai, while he held the 
office of judge, he was away 5 months and 25 days without the 
knowledge of those above, or without leave of absence from anyone. 
No one knew anything about it as far as the Washington authorities 
were concerned. The vouchers are set forth under the seal of the 
Treasury and transmitted by letter from the Assistant Secretary 
under date of April 11, 1913. These vouchers, and other vouchers, 
were asked for by Senator Hughes, of New Jersey, and I would ask 
that those vouchers be inserted in the record. If the committee cares 
to inspect them, I would be glad to show them to the members of the 
committee. 

The Chairman. It might aid the committee if you would make a 
statement as to the specific charges against this judge at Shanghai, 
and, subsequently, you can enlarge upon the charges by bringing 
forth such evidence as you have and attaching to that evidence the 
official documents bearing out your statements. Do you make charges 
against any other men ? 

Mr. Curtis. The others involved in the charges are accused of col¬ 
lusion. These reports could not have been made without collusion; 
that is, collusion on the part of the disbursing officer and the consul 
general out there who rented buildings and then subleased them to the 
court at advanced pay. 



CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


The Chairman. This committee would have nothing to do with 
the investigation of charges against the consular service because that 
belongs to the State Department and another committee has juris¬ 
diction over that subject. 

Mr. Fergusson. I would suggest that Mr. Curtis be permitted to 
file anything that is necessary to illustrate any statement he makes. 

The Chairman. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Crampton. I would be glad to have Mr. Curtis extend his 
statement as to the jurisdiction of the court, and the amount and im¬ 
portance of the business that comes before the court. 

Mr. Curtis. I will be pleased to do that. 

Mr. Hart. I am wholly ignorant of the treaty providing for this 
court, and it might be well to have that included in the record. 

The Chairman. I think so. Mr. Curtis has already testified that 
there was an act of Congress under which this court was created. I 
presume that if the act was made a part of this record it would show 
the nature of the treaty. 

Mr. Hart. Unless the treaty departed from it. Does the treaty 
depart from the act at all in any detail ? 

Mr. Curtis. No ; the act is in harmony with the treaty. 

Mr. Hart. The treaty does not depart at all from the act? 

Mr. Curtis. No. 

Mr. Hart. So that anyone reading the act would understand the 
treaty ? 

Mr. Curtis. Well, I would not say that. I should say that one 
reading the act would get a clear idea of the jurisdiction of the court. 
But the treaty is very brief; it simply says that the United States 
shall have power to try offenses against citizens of the United States 
in China. I lay stress on the words “ in China,” and desire to call 
attention to the fact that the court has usurped probate jurisdiction 
in face of the act creating the court which says that the court shall 
exercise supervisory control over the discharge by consuls of their 
duties in China. 

Mr. Hart. You are thoroughly familiar with the act and the 
treaty ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Hart. And for the purpose of this investigation anyone read¬ 
ing the act would have a sufficient knowledge of the treaty ? 

Mr. Curtis, That is correct. I think it would be sufficient to merely 
have a reference to the treaty. 

The Chairman. What treaty is it? 

Mr. Curtis. It is the treaty of 1844; that is, that was the first 
treaty. It has been incorporated in the treaties ever since that time, 
because, as you know, we have had a number of commercial treaties 
since then. 

Mr. Hart. What is the domestic condition of this man? Is he a 
married man? 

Mr. Curtis. He has a wife. I believe he was married shortly be¬ 
fore he went out there. 

Mr. Hart. Has he any children? 

Mr. Curtis. No ; he was married late in life. 

Mr. Hart. Did he take his wife there with him ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


7 


The Chairman. Suppose we make as a part of this statement the 
act of Congress creating the court to which reference has been made. 
Have you a copy of the act with you? 

Mr. Curtis. No; but I can cite it to you. 

The Chairman. We will put it into the record. 

Mr. Curtis. It is the act of June 30, 1906, Thirty-fourth Statutes 
at Large, page 814. 

(The act follows:) 

[Public —No. 403.] 

AN ACT Creating a United States Court for China and prescribing the jurisdiction 

thereof. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That a court is hereby established, to 
be called the United States Court for China, which shall have exclusive juris¬ 
diction in all cases and judicial proceedings whereof jurisdiction may now be 
exercised by United States consuls and ministers by law and by virtue of 
treaties between the United States and China except in so far as the said juris¬ 
diction is qualified by section 2 of this act. The said court shall hold sessions 
at Shanghai, China, and shall also hold sessions at the cities of Canton, Tientsin, 
and Hankau at stated periods, the dates of such sessions at each city to be an¬ 
nounced in such manner as the court shall direct, and a session of the court 
shall be held in each of these cities at least once annually. It shall be within 
the power of the judge, upon due notice to the parties in litigation, to open and 
hold court for the hearing of a special cause at any place permitted by the 
treaties, and where there is a United States consulate, when, in his judgment, 
it shall be required by the convenience of witnesses or by some public interest. 
The place of sitting of the court shall be in the United States consulate at each 
of the cities, respectively. 

That the seal Of the said United States Court for China shall be the arms of 
the United States, engraved on a circular piece of steel of the size of a half 
dollar, with these words on the margin, “ The Seal of the United States Court 
for China.” 

The seal of said court shall be provided at the expense of the United States. 

All writs and processes issuing from the said court and all transcripts, rec¬ 
ords, copies, jurats, acknowledgments, and other papers requiring certification 
or to be under seal may be authenticated by said seal, and shall be signed by 
the clerk of said court. Ail processes issued from the said court shall bear 
lest from the day of such issue. 

Sec. 2. The consuls of the United States in the cities of China to which they 
are respectively accredited shall have the same jurisdiction as they now pos¬ 
sess in civil cases where the sum or value of the property involved in the con¬ 
troversy does not exceed $500 United States money and in criminal cases where 
the punishment for the offense charged can not exceed by law $100 fine or 60 
days’ imprisonment, or both, and shall have power to arrest, examine, and dis¬ 
charge accused persons or commit them to the said court. From all final judg¬ 
ments of the consular court either party shall have the right of appeal to the 
United States Court for China: Provided, also, That appeal may be taken to 
the United States court for China from any final judgment of the consular 
courts of the United States in Korea so long as the rights of extraterritoriality 
shall obtain in favor of the United States. The said United States Court for 
China shall have and exercise supervisory control over the discharge by consuls 
and vice consuls of the duties prescribed by the laws of the United States relat¬ 
ing to the estates of decedents in China. Within 60 days after the death in 
China of any citizen of the United States or any citizen of any territory be¬ 
longing to the United States the consul or vice consul whose duty it becomes to 
take possession of the effects of such deceased person under the laws of the 
United States shall file with the clerk of said court a sworn inventory of such 
effects, and shall as additional effects come from time to time into his posses¬ 
sion immediately file a supplemental inventory or inventories of the same. He 
shall also file with the clerk of said court within said 60 days a schedule under 
oath of the debts of said decedent, so far as known, and a schedule or state¬ 
ment of all additional debts thereafter discovered. Such consul or vice consul 


8 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


shall pay no claims against the estate without the written approval of the judge 
of said court, nor shall he make sale of any of the assets of said estate without 
first reporting the same to said judge and obtaining a written approval of said 
sale, and he shall likewise within 10 days after any such sale report the fact 
of such sale to said court and the amount derived therefrom. The said judge 
shall have power to require at any time reports from consuls or vice consuls 
in respect of all their acts and doings relating to the estate of any such de¬ 
ceased person. The said court shall have power to require, where it may be 
necessary, a special bond for the faithful performance of his duty, to be given 
by any consul or vice consul into whose possession the estate of any such de¬ 
ceased citizen shall have come, in such amount and with such sureties as may 
be deemed necessary, and for failure to give such boDd when required or for 
failure to properly perform his duties in the premises the court may appoint 
some other person to take charge of said estate, such person having first given 
bond as aforesaid. A record shall be kept by the clerk of said court of all 
proceedings in respect of any such estate under the provisions hereof. 

Sec. 3. That appeals shall lie from all final judgments or decrees of said court 
to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, and 
thence appeals and writs of error may be taken from the judgments or decrees 
of the said circuit court of appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the same class of cases as those in which appeals and writs of error are per¬ 
mitted to judgments of said court of appeals in cases coming from district and 
circuit courts of the United States. Said appeals or writs of error shall be 
regulated by the procedure governing appeals within the United States from 
the district courts to the circuit courts of appeal and from the circuit courts of 
appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, respectively, so far as the 
same shall be applicable; and said courts are hereby empowered to hear and 
determine appeals and writs of error so taken. 

Sec. 4. The jurisdiction of said United States court, both original and on 
appeal, in civil and criminal matters, and also the jurisdiction of the consular 
courts in China, shall in all cases be exercised in conformity with said treaties 
and the laws of the United States now in force in reference to the American 
consular courts in China, and all judgments and decisions of said consular 
courts and all decisions, judgments, and decrees of said United States court 
shall be enforced in accordance with said treaties and laws; but in all such 
cases when such laws are deficient in the provisions necessary to give jurisdic¬ 
tion or to furnish suitable remedies the common law and the law as established 
by the decisions of the courts of the United States shall be applied by said 
court in its decisions and shall govern the same, subject to the terms of any 
treaties between the United States and China. 

Sec. 5. That the procedure of the said court shall be in accordance, so far as 
practicable, with the existing procedure prescribed for consular courts in China 
in accordance with the Revised Statutes of the United States: Provided, how¬ 
ever, That the judge of the said United States Court for China shall have 
authority from time to time to modify and supplement said rules of procedure. 
The provisions of sections 4106 and 4107 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
States allowing consuls in certain cases to summon associates shall have no 
application to said court. 

Sec. 6. There shall be a district attorney, a marshal, and a clerk of said 
court, with authority possessed by the corresponding officers of the district 
courts in the United States as far as may be consistent with the conditions of 
the laws of the United States and said treaties. The judge of said court and 
the district attorney, who shall be lawyers of good standing and experience, 
marshal, and clerk shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate, and shall receive as salary, respectively, the sums 
of $8,000 per annum for said judge, $4,000 per annum for said district attorney, 
$3,000 per annum for said marshal, and $3,000 per annum for said clerk. The 
judge of the said court and the district attorney shall, when the sessions of 
the court are held at other cities than Shanghai, receive in addition to their 
salaries their necessary expenses during such sessions not to exceed $10 per 
day for the judge and $5 per day for the district attorney. 

Sec. 7. The tenure of office of the judge of said court shall be 10 years, unless 
•sooner removed by the President for cause; the tenure of office of the other 
officials of the court shall be at the pleasure of the President. 

Sec. 8. The marshal and the clerk of said court shall be required to furnish 
hond for the faithful performance of their duties, in sums and with sureties 
to be fixed and approved by the judge of the court. They shall each appoint, 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


9 


with the written approval of said judge, deputies at Canton and Tientsin, who 
shall also be required to furnish bonds for the faithful performance of their 
duties, which bonds shall be subject, both as to form and sufficiency of the sure¬ 
ties, to the approval of the said judge. Such deputies shall receive compensa¬ 
tion at the rate of $5 for each day the sessions of the court are held at their 
respective cities. The office of marshal in China now existing in pursuance of 
section 4111 of the Revised Statutes is hereby abolished. 

Sec. 9. The tariff of fees of said officers of the court shall be the same as the 
tariff already fixed for the consular courts in China, subject to amendment from 
time to time by order of the President, and all fees taxed and received shall be 
paid into the Treasury of the United States. 

Approved, June 30, 1906. 

The Chairman. And you will furnish a copy of the section of the 
treaty to which you have referred ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes; I will furnish a copy to the stenographer. 

The Chairman. And that will be inserted in the record. 

(The section referred to follows:) 

By Article XXV of the treaty of 1844 (concluded July 3, 1844) between 
China and the United States it was provided as follows: 

“All questions in regard to rights, whether of property or person, arising be¬ 
tween citizens of the United States in China, shall be subject to the jurisdiction 
of, and regulated by the auhorities of their own Government. And all contro¬ 
versies occurring in China between cPizens of the United States and the sub¬ 
jects of any other Government shall be regulated by the treaties existing be¬ 
tween the United States and such Governments, respectively, without inter¬ 
ference on the part of China.” (This provision has been continued in force by 
the various treaties made with China since 1844.) 

See Senate Document 357, Sixty-first Congress, second session, volume 1, 
page 203. 

Mr. Curtis. The section giving us extra territorial jurisdiction in 
China is set forth in the very first treaty, and it has been incorpo¬ 
rated in the various commercial treaties since then. 

It is difficult to give the committee an idea of the local atmosphere 
of Shanghai. It is one of the most important ports in imports and 
exports in the world. There is more business done in Shanghai in a 
week than in San Francisco in a year. It has an enormous popula¬ 
tion—about 450,000 Chinese and not more than 20,000 foreigners, in¬ 
cluding Japanese. I do not presume there are over 3,000 Americans 
in Shanghai and its suburbs, but there are enough to have a jury 7 and 
grand jury. 

The court is absolutely independent of everybody and everything 
except the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, and that is 7,000 
miles away. 

The Chairman. Which one? 

Mr. Curtis. The ninth circuit. 

The Chairman. Of California? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; but that court is too far away for appeals. 
It takes $125 to go from Shanghai to San Francisco, and after you 
get there the living expenses are high. It costs a great deal to em¬ 
ploy attorneys, and it takes a long time for the case to come to trial, 
and consequently American citizens in moderate means are com¬ 
pletely at the mercy of the court. 

There are no inspectors of the Department of Justice who investi¬ 
gate their accounts, and as the disbursing officer, who was at one time 
the clerk of the court, is in collusion with the judge, they act as they 
wish. Reports, however, are sent to the State Department, but the 
State Department, I am sorry to say, is one case withheld a contract 


10 


CHARGES AGAINST KUEUS H. THAYEK. 


which was absolutely necessary for the Auditor of the State Depart¬ 
ment to have in order to know anything about these accounts or rents 
of buildings, and so forth. 

The Chairman. Eight there let me ask you whether I understand 
you correctly to say that the clerk of the court is the only checking 
officer upon these expenses ? 

Mr. Curtis. He was the only checking officer up to the latter part 
of 1911, when the court transferred the duties of the finances of the 
office to the marshal, whose name is Wilson. 

The Chairman. Is the clerk appointed by the judge himself? 

Mr. Curtis. He is appointed by the President, as is also the 
marshal, under the advice and with the consent of the Senate. 

Mr. Hart. What is the practice in regard to the appointment of 
the clerk and the marshal; that is, are they appointed on the recom¬ 
mendation of the presiding officer? 

Mr. Curtis. The clerk and marshall are appointed by the Presi¬ 
dent. In this particular case, when Mr. Wifley resigned his district 
attorney also resigned, and then the clerk, Mr. Hinckley, who was 
not a lawyer, through the recommendation of Mr. Thayer, was made 
United States district attorney. Mr. Hinckley had never been ad¬ 
mitted to practice in any State or Federal court in the United States, 
and had never graduated from any law school or studied in any law 
office, but he had studied political economy in the Columbia Uni¬ 
versity. I am told that the last year’s course in political economy 
embraces a little law, but he was not a lawyer or an experienced 
lawyer, such as was made a prerequisite in the act creating the court 
before a man could be appointed district attorney. In other words, 
he had to be a lawyer of experience and good standing, but this 
man was not a lawyer, and was not a lawyer in good standing. 
However, through the friendship of Mr. Thayer he was appointed 
district attorney, and through these reports I will show that Mr. 
Hinckley transmitted the accounts to the Treasury Department. 

The Chairman. What are the specific things you charge? 

Mr. Curtis. The second charge, after stating in the first specifica¬ 
tion about the expenditure of $5,333.10 on false vouchers- 

Mr. Fergusson. You say false vouchers for payments amounting 
to $5,333.10. What do you mean by that? 

Mr. Curtis. The vouchers which were signed by the judge and 
sent for approval and payment to the auditor and Treasurer of the 
United States were not signed at Shanghai at the time they pur¬ 
ported to have been signed; the certificates on these vouchers state 
that the payments were for salary due him for services in the Empire 
of China, but, as a matter of fact, he was in the Empire of Japan, 
entirely outside of the jurisdiction of China and outside of the juris¬ 
diction of the court for which he was appointed judge. 

Mr. Fergusson. Are they false in any other sense than that ? 

Mr. Curtis. They are false in the sense that his pay was not due, 
because he was out of the jurisdiction and the services were not 
rendered, and he was not in China when they purported to have 
been paid. 

Mr. Fergusson. Then they are false in that he got money out of 
the Government that was not due him and for services he did not 
render ? 

Mr. Curtis. Exactly. 



CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 11 

The Chairman. Does the law provide how his salary shall be paid 
to him? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes; his salary is $8,000. 

The Chairman. Is it to be paid quarterly? 

Mr. Curtis. It is paid monthly. His salary is $8,000 a year; it is 
$1,000 more than the salary of the judges in the United States circuit 
courts of appeals, $2,000 more than the salary of the United States 
district judge, and $4,000 more than the salary of the Territorial 
judges of the Hawaiian circuit courts. 

Mr. Cramton. How do the living expenses in China compare with 
the living expenses in the United States? 

Mr. Curtis. They are three times as cheap as in the United States; 
$8,000 in China has a purchasing power of $25,000 in the United 
States. 

He does not try more than 12 cases a year, as will be shown by the 
records of the court and by the North China Herald, which is on 
file in the Library of Congress. 

Mr. Cramton. Is that due to the lack of attention to business or 
the lack of business? 

Mr. Curtis. It is due to the lack of business. The greater number 
of these cases have been against gamblers and prostitutes, and va¬ 
grancy charges. Those are the cases, outside of probate cases, the 
jurisdiction of which this court has usurped. The law covering those 
cases has been in force since 1792. Under the treaty with China our 
consuls can look after the personal effects of citizens dying intestate. 
It is the only country in the world where consuls have a free hand. 
The act to which I have just referred was passed in 1792 and has 
never been repealed; it remained in force and was followed until the 
time Mr. Goodnow took hold of matters and started to probate estates 
himself and looted the estates. That law and the regulations of the 
Department of State, which have the force of law under the statutes 
of the United States, strictly impose the duty of conserving the estates 
of citizens who die abroad, and in China, upon consuls and vice 
consuls. Sections 1709 and 1710, Eevised Statutes, cover the subject, 
and under those sections they are to take possession of the personal 
estate left by any citizens of the United States, to inventory the same, 
to collect the debts due the deceased, sell such part of the estate as 
shall be of a perishable nature, pay his debts, and to transmit the bal¬ 
ance to the Treasury Department to be held in trust for the legal 
claimant or claimants; it is also provided that notification of the 
death of the deceased shall be sent to the State Department, to be pub¬ 
lished in the local papers published at the domicile of the deceased in 
the United States. But since this court has been established it has 
usurped that probate jurisdiction, and nobody knows what they 
are doing with the estates. They refer to the estates not by names but 
by docket numbers, so that no one can tell anything about them. A 
most interesting question will come up in relation to these estates. I 
have a letter from the Acting Secretary of State, John Bassett 
Moore—Mr. Bryan was away at the time—in response to a letter 
written by Senator Hughes; it is addressed to myself, and the third 
section of this letter, page 4, reads as follows: 

The act of June 30, 1906, establishing the United States Court for China, 
gave the court “supervisory control over the discharge by consuls and vice 
consuls, of the duties prescribed by the laws of the United States relating to 


12 


CHARGES AGAINST RTJFUS H. THAYER. 


the estates of decedents in China ” and required consular officers to file with 
the United States court inventories of effects, deaths, etc., of decedents. The 
act provides further that consular officers “ shall pay no claims against the 
estate without the written approval of the judge of said court, nor shall he 
make sale of any of the assets of said estate without first reporting the same 
to said judge and obtaining a written approval of said sale, and he shall like¬ 
wise within 10 days after any such sale report the fact of such sale to said 
court and the amount derived therefrom. The said judge shall have power 
to require at any time reports from consuls or vice consuls in respect of all 
their acts and doings relating to the estate of any such deceased person. The 
said court shall have power to require where it may be necessary a special 
bond for the faithful performance of his duty to be given by any consul or 
vice consul into whose possession the estate of any such deceased citizen shall 
have come, in such amount and with such securities as may be deemed necessary, 
and for failure to give such bond when required, or for failure to properly 
perform his duties in the premises, the court may appoint some other person 
to take charge of said estate, such person having first given bond as aforesaid. 
A record shall be kept by the clerk of said court of all proceedings in respect 
of any such estate under the provisions hereof.” 

In May, 1907, a case in re probate of will of John Pratt Roberts came up 
in the United States Court for China, and regarding the probate jurisdiction of 
the United States court that court held as follows: “ We hold, therefore, that 
prior to the inauguration of this court the consular court of the United States 
in China had jurisdiction in the matter of the estates of Americans decedent 
in China, in all cases, and that now this court has jurisdiction in such matters 
when the value of the estate involved is above $500 United States currency, 
the consular courts retaining their jurisdiction over those estates which are 
valued at less than this amount.” A copy of this decision is appended. 

Now, gentlemen of the committee, from this you will see that the 
decision quoted is directly in violation of the very act creating the 
court. They hold that the court has probate jurisdiction, but it is 
directly in violation of the act creating the court, in violation of the 
laws relating to decedents dying abroad, the dut^ being imposed by 
law upon consuls and vice consuls to take possession of the personal 
estate left by any citizen of the United States dying abroad. The 
object and purpose of that decision was simply to give the court full 
power to go in and handle these estates and make no accounting 
whatever. 

The Chairman. I would like to go back to the $5,000, because the 
question of jurisdiction is not so important to this committee as the 
question of the charge made that these vouchers were falsified. I 
would like to ask further, does the law providing for the payment 
of the judge’s salary require him to be in China, or is there a lack of 
any specific declaration with regard to that in the law ? 

Mr. Curtis. There is nothing said in the law. It is drawn up 
similar to other acts creating .courts. It is presumed that the judge 
of a district or circuit court in the United States appointed to office 
will remain within the jurisdiction of his court, at least that he will 
not go to Europe. 

Mr. Hart. Did his absence retard the administration of justice? 

Mr. Curtis. As a matter of fact, it did. There were a number of 
eases which came up, one an admiralty case in which I acted as attor¬ 
ney, rather an interesting case. If you wish the facts I can give 
them to you. There were a number of other cases, to my knowledge, 
and the court should have been there. There was the case of one 
citizen who was held in jail some months because there was no one 
to try him and pass upon the case, because Mr. Thayer was in Europe. 

The Chairman. The period to which you referred formerly, he was 
in Japan? 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 13 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. My second specification relates to 10 months’ 
absence from China. 

The Chairman. In one year—in the same year? 

Mr. Curtis. Two years. Ten months and seven days in two years. 

The Chairman. What years were those? 

Mr. Curtis. 1911 and 1912. 

The Chairman. In what year was he in Japan? 

Mr. Curtis. In 1909 and in 1910, and in 1911 and 1912 he Avas in 
Europe, England, and in America. 

Mr. Cramton. Do I understand that his salary would not have 
been paid without certificates being filed to certify to his having been 
in China at the time? 

Mr. Curtis. That is the requirement that is made of United States 
judges. It is the practice of the Auditor for the State and Other 
Departments to check the accounts of the marshals and judges, and 
there must be a marshal or some one within the judicial district to 
certify, but there is no one out in China to look after the accounts. 
The court was created by Congress, but nothing was said as to who 
was to have jurisdiction or under whose control it was to rest, or who 
was to determine anything about the court. There was nothing said 
about its accounts, who was to supervise the accounts, or who was to 
grant leave to the judge. 

Mr. Cramton. Suppose he had filed a certificate showing the true 
facts, that he was in Japan at the time, would he have received his 
money ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is a most interesting question. The State De¬ 
partment disavows any authority to grant a leave of absence. It 
doubts its authority in the letter which I have just read, and Mr. 
Thayer said absolutely nothing to the State Department or anyone 
else that he was in Japan. I returned to China in 1909. I was a 
member of the bar of the consular court, the jurisdiction of which— 
over $500—was succeeded by the United States Court for China. I 
returned to China in 1907, and I went back on an appeal case to the 
United States Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco, the case of 
the Cunningham estate, and after I had argued and submitted that 
case I returned to China, in 1909. About the 30th of June, 1909, I 
saw Mr. Thayer in Kobe, Japan. I went over on the steamship 
Siberia, of the Pacific Mail Steamship Line. Mr. Thayer said that 
it was absolutely necessary for me to go down to China and take an 
examination before he would allow me to practice; that Judge Wil- 
fley made that rule and that he intended to enforce it. I told him 
that I did not wish to antagonize the court and I would go down to 
Shanghai and take the examination. He said that he would write 
to the clerk. I went down, saw the clerk, and he refused to give me 
any papers unless I filed a petition, which I declined to do. Then I 
went back to Kobe. I told him that I had been to the United States 
in one case to oppose his predecessor, Mr. Goodnow, and that I 
thought it was a grave wrong for me to have to travel thousands of 
miles, at great cost, in order to be permitted to practice at that court. 
He flew into a rage and implied that he would punish me for con¬ 
tempt, but finally he cooled off and said that he would give me an 
examination himself. Here is the paper [exhibiting], and there is 
the seal of the court [indicating] showing that I passed a satisfactory 
examination on the top of Rokkosan, a high mountain in Japan. 


14 


CHARGES AGAINST RUEUS H. THAYER, 


Then I returned again to Shanghai to practice law, and in the very 
first case I appeared before him he fined me for alleged contempt $25 
gold or 10 days in jail, because he said a petition for a rehearing 
which I filed was contemptuous, and that he would not permit me to 
continue to practice until I apologized, and so I apologized. 

Mr. Fergusson. I would like to go back a little. You referred to 
Mr. Bryan being in charge of this matter ? 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Bryan has said—I have seen him since—that in 
this court the judge should be named by the Department of State 
or by its officials, but the first Secretary of State was inclined to think 
that it was otherwise, but at any rate the court is supposed to be 
under the Department of State, but there is no law really as to it. 
There is no exequatur issued by the State Department to the judge 
to be presented in China. The judge is in the same position in rela¬ 
tion to the foreign office of China as a special examiner of the Treas¬ 
ury Department in the matter of customs should he go to China, or 
an inspector of the Immigration Service of the Department of Labor 
and Commerce abroad. 

Mr. Fergusson. Are the vouchers returned to the State Depart¬ 
ment or the Attorney General? 

Mr. Curtis. To the Auditor for the State Department, the same 
as the accounts of other courts. 

Mr. Fergusson. How are these accounts paid? Take this item of 
$5,000, was it audited and paid by the State Department or the 
Attorney General? 

The Chairman. As I understand, the Auditor for the State and 
Other Departments audits the accounts. 

Mr. Curtis. He is the auditor for the Department of Justice also. 

The Chairman. There is only one auditor for all the departments, 
so far as the courts are concerned, no matter how the courts are ap¬ 
pointed. For instance, in Hawaii, Porto Kico, and the Philippine 
Islands there are courts appointed by the War Department. This 
court is appointed through the State Department. There are other 
courts in the United States appointed by the Attorney General’s 
Office, but the auditor for all these courts and the officials of the 
courts is the same identical man. 

Mr. Fergusson. I want to go back to the item of $5,000 which you 
mentioned. You referred to that as a false voucher? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; as false and fictitious and in violation of 
section 35 of the Criminal Code. 

Mr. Fergusson. And one item is that he verified that while in 
Japan and not in his own jurisdiction? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Fergusson. Is it false in any other respect? What I have in 
mind is this: Is it false in that it calls for money never earned or 
not due for salary? 

Mr. Curtis. Precisely. 

Mr. Fergusson. Please point that out. 

Mr. Curtis. I will show you the voucher. 

Mr. Fergusson. In other words, is the forgery there for the pur¬ 
pose of getting money? 

Mr. Curtis. There is the voucher [exhibiting], 

Mr. Fergusson. Is that a part of his salary ? 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


15 


Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. This is dated in Shanghai, July 30, 1909; he 
was in Japan at that time. 

Mr. Fergusson. That was true as to the amount, but false as to 
where he was? 

Mr. Curtis. He was not in China the whole month of July. 

Mr. Fergusson. You have also said that some of the vouchers 
called for money not due or earned? 

Mr. Curtis. The total amount on the face of the false vouchers for 
salary during the months of 1911 and 1912 was $8,666.40. The total 
amount overpaid in violation of section 35 of the Criminal Code on 
false vouchers during said absence is $6,822.14. 

Mr. Fergusson. Covering what period? 

Mr. Curtis. Covering three years. The aggregate amount of false 
vouchers, including salary for March, 1910, and Hong Kong expenses, 
was $14,861.10. 

Mr. Fergusson. Is that all for salary? 

Mr. Curtis. Part for expenses. 

Mr. Fergusson. For my own satisfaction, I want to get before 
this committee information as to where he got money that was not 
due him for salary or any legitimate expenses. The general statement 
of your charge included, as I understand, that, and I want to get 
into the record some proof of it. 

Mr. Curtis. I will give you that later. 

Here it is right here. Here is an account which is false. Here is 
an account of a trip to Canton and his expenses are false. These are 
the vouchers. 

The Chairman. What do they aggregate? 

Mr. Curtis. Here is the summary; I have made an indictment, 
drawn up after a case which was tried in Colorado against a marshal! 
He was only away 24 days. The total amount paid on false vouchers 
was $194.94. The amount overpaid on false vouchers for March, 
1910, salary for 14 days, $311.08, and amount overpaid for expenses, 
$74.94. 

Mr. Fergusson. I would suggest that you take time to prepare a 
written statement as to the items which are false in the sense that he 
got money for expenses or any other way that was manufactured to 
get money. 

Mr. Curtis. Here is a summary of it. 

Mr. Fergusson. You state generally that they are false in the re¬ 
spect that the money he got by false statements and vouchers, and I 
would suggest that you put in a separate statement and sign it. 

Mr. Curtis. I will be glad to do that right now, and hand it to the 
stenographer. 

Specification 3. That the said Rufus H. Thayer, in said Shanghai, in the 
Republic of China, on to wit, the 31st day of March, 1910, did knowingly, 
willfully and unlawfully, make and present and cause to be made and pre¬ 
sented for payment and approval to the Auditor for the State and Other Depart¬ 
ments and to the Treasurer of the United States, at Washington, D. C., the 
said auditor and the said Treasurer being then and there persons and officers 
in the civil service of the United States, a certain false, fictitious, and fraudu¬ 
lent account, bill, and receipt against the Government of the United States, 
to wit, an account, bill, and receipt for payment and reimbursement to him, 
said Rufus H. Thayer, of certain alleged actual and necessary personal ex¬ 
penses on circuit to Canton, China, from March 4 to 29, 1910, 26 days, amount¬ 
ing to $194.94, lawful money of the United States, in words and figures set forth 
on pages 128, 129, 130, 131, and 132 of Exhibit No. 1, hereto attached and 


16 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


made part hereof, whereas in truth and in fact, while the law creating: 
said United States Court for China requires said court to hold a session once a 
year in said Canton, there was no business requiring the presence of the court 
there in March, 1910, and the said court actually remained in said Canton only 
from the morning of the 9th to the evening of the 11th of March, 1910, two and 
one-half days. The said Thayer could readily have returned to Shanghai, 
China, by the 15th day of March, 1910, instead of which he went to the British 
colony of Hongkong, arriving there on the morning of the 12th of March,. 
1910, where, instead of taking a ship for Shanghai, he remained over to the 
26th of March, 1910, two weeks. That said Thayer had no appointment to an 
office in said British colony of Hongkong, and had no judicial authority to 
exercise or judicial duties of any nature whatever to perform there, and his- 
absence of two weeks without leave from his post of duty at Shanghai or else¬ 
where in China, and the charging of his personal expenses in said Hongkong 
from the 12th to the 26th of March, 1910, to the United States as actual and 
necessary expenses was unlawful, and said accounts, bills, and receipts setting 
forth same are false, fictitious, and fraudulent. 

The Chairman. I think it would simplify matters if Mr. Curtis 
were to specifically recite the various charges that he makes and then 
add to them under each head the specific things which causes him to 
make the charges. 

Mr. Hart. Let me intrude a question. You have made charges 
that he presented such a statement. Hid he receive the money which 
he asked for in that statement? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; the accounts show that they have been paid. 

Mr. Hart. Paid to and received by him? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; it is for reimbursement. 

The Chairman- As I understand, he remained there on account 
of his own business and charged his expenses to the Government? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. While his official business required him at that 
time, if there was no business at Canton, to be at Shanghai ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Fergusson. Please make a summary of every expense and 
hand it to the stenographer. 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What is your next charge? 

Mr. Curtis. The next charge is that Mr. Thayer made a false 
return of rent of the building at Shanghai, China, used for court 
purposes. 

The Chairman. You have a specific instance of that recited in 
this statement? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; and supported by vouchers for rent and tax 
receipts. 

Mr. Fergusson. Which have been paid? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. I will explain that to you briefly. The 
consul general is entitled to 20 per cent of his salary for office rent, 
allowed by the President under the law. His salary being $8,000 
gold, the 20 per cent would be $1,600. Instead of leasing offices for 
that amount he leased five buildings, four of which are precisely the 
same in every particular—four in a row. He paid 8,400 taeis, as 
shown by the contract here, and then he turns around and leases 
these houses to the Government. He leases one of them—No. 16 
Whangpoo Road—to the postal agent at $50 a month, $600 a year, 
and throws in besides the basement of No. 15 Whangpoo Road, the 
house adjoining. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


17 


The actual rent of No. 16 Whangpoo Road would be $45 a month, 
or 75 taels. That is 60 cents exchange. The next building, No. 15 
Mhangpoo Road, the second and third floors and the garret or attic 
he charges the United States $100 gold for, and he represents to 
Congress that that is the actual rent, when as a matter of fact it is 
only $45 for the whole building. Then, he rents the fifth building 
to the United States court at 200 taels a month, which is $120 gold a 
month; that is 60 cents exchange. Then, vouchers are sent to the 
auditor representing that that amount is $200 gold, or $80 gold more, 
in place of the actual amount paid, as shown by the tax receipt, 
which is 12 per cent of the actual rent of the building. I know from 
my own experience and knowledge that the rent is 2,400 taels, and 
not $2,400. The vouchers from the 1st of August, 1911, to the 30th 
of June, 1912, 11 months, and purporting on their face to be for rent 
of said building for the quarters ending September 30, 1911, De¬ 
cember 31, 1911, March 31, 1912, and June 30, 1912, amount on their 
face to $2,137.75 lawful money of the United States. 

The Chairman. You mean that that is the overcharge? 

Mr. Curtis. That is the total amount. You take the months and 
multiply by 80 to get the amount overpaid. 

The Chairman. How much did the Government pay more ? 

Mr. Curtis. Eighty dollars a month more than the tax receipts 
show should have been paid. 

The Chairman. Who received that $80? 

Mr. Curtis. That is problematical. The contract shows that Mr. 
Wilder paid 8,400 taels for the five buildings. 

Mr. Fergusson. Who is Mr. Wilder? 

Mr. Curtis. The consul general, renting this building at 25 per 
cent higher than the market value. By doing this the two houses 
that he used, 13 and 14, on Whangpoo Road, the consul general gets 
at less than the amount allowed by law. 

The Chairman. I do not understand how the judge comes into 
that transaction. 

Mr. Curtis. The judge comes in in this way: The judge gets his 
quarters and has had his quarters there the last two years, and so 
has the marshal. 

Mr. Hart. His business or residential quarters ? 

Mr. Curtis. His residential quarters, including electric light, heat 
during the winter, and electric fans if he is there. These vouchers 
show that it is used exclusively for the business of the United States 
court, and besides he gets half a dozen servants, coolies and others. 
The vice consuls get their quarters in Nos. 13 and 14 Whangpoo 
Road. The most remarkable thing is that the consul wrote to the 
auditor that the rent of these premises for residential purposes 
should have been paid or would be paid by the vice consuls, but, as a 
matter of fact, the records show that no rent whatever has been paid 
by them for residential purposes. I would like to read this letter 
to you to show the remarkable statement by the vice consul. 

The Chairman. How is the judge connected with that transaction? 

Mr. Curtis. In this way, Mr. Chairman. The postmaster, the 
consul general, and the court have agreed to a sort of conspiracy to 
put the most favorable light that you can possibly upon it, io take 

9997 — 1 ! 


2 


18 CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 

money from one appropriation and apply it to another, and thereby 
give these various men interested in this conspiracy or collusion a 
chance to get their quarters for nothing, and the marshal forwards 
vouchers to the Government that this house is devoted exclusively 
to the business of the respective officers. The United States allows 
over $4,000 gold for a jail, and for incidental expenses, assistant 
jailers, etc., and $100 gold for the rent of the building. They take 
one building where the market value is 75 taels, or $45. They take a 
part of one building, a similar building, a part of that building, 15 
Whang Poo Road, being rented to the Post Office Department at $50 
a month, and they rent that building to the United States Govern¬ 
ment for a jail at $100, and men are held as prisoners, charged with 
crime, to answer to the United States court—have to remain in the 
attic or third floor of the building until the return of the judge. 
There is no yard, no place for exercise, and the climate is the worst 
in the world, the Asiatic cholera is rampant every summer, and small¬ 
pox, dysentery, malaria, and all ills that flesh is heir to. The men are 
housed there. They report to the Appropriations Committee that 
the amount of money actually expended for the rent of that building 
is $100, when as a matter of fact it is only $45. 

Mr. Cramton. The actual value of the building is about $45 a month. 
The Government pays $120 for the quarters which are used for court 
purposes on the assumption that they are to be used for court pur¬ 
poses alone, that that is actually paid to the consul general, but the 
Government pays $200, whereas $80 goes into the pocket of the 
judge? 

Mr. Curtis. I do not know where the money goes. I will show 
you the tax receipt. 

Mr. Fergusson. Does the judge certify to the amount of this 
money ? 

Mr. Curtis. There [exhibiting] is a tax receipt. 

Mr. Cramton. Are we to understand that this building which is 
used for court purposes, that the actual commercial value of that is 
$45 a month? 

Mr. Curtis. $120 a month is the actual commercial value; 2,400 
taels a year. 

The Chairman. What does the judge certify to, and what does the 
United States Government pay for that particular building to which 
this has reference? 

Mr. Curtis. The Government pays $200 a month. 

The Chairman. $2,400 a year? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. Here [exhibiting] is the tax receipt. Here 
[exhibiting] is the contract for it. 

The Chairman. You claim that more money is collected from the 
Government- 

Mr. Curtis (interposing). For the building than the actual rent 
of the building. 

The Chairman. Is that on the certificate of the judge or the 
marshal ? 

Mr. Curtis. I will explain that. The contract for the rent of that 
building is signed by the marshal of the court—the contract is here. 
The receipt for the rent is made out by T. J. Raven, manager of the 
China Realty Co., and is paid to him by the compradore of the 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 19 

United States court, a Chinaman who holds his office by virtue of 
the court, 

Mr. Hart. Can you answer the chairman’s question briefly? 

Mr. Curtis. I will try to. 

The vouchers show that the receipt was given to the compradore— 
all of the business in China, except of one corporation, the Standard 
Oil Co., is transacted through a compradore, a Chinaman who ad¬ 
vances money and who receives money, who takes the amount he ad¬ 
vances from the Government and makes his monthly returns. These 
receipts for the amount of money for rent are given to the compra¬ 
dore, and by him are given to the marshal or financial officer of the 
court, who in turn sends them to the Auditor for the State and Other 
Departments. 

The Chairman. That is not clear to me. 

Mr. Hart. The Government is paying a certain sum of money for 
rent, and the landlord is receiving a less sum for rent; is there the 
certificate of the larger amount by the judge? 

Mr. Curtis. I will just see. These vouchers are sene to the first 
auditor by the financial agent, who is now the marshal of that court— 
sometime ago it was the clerk of the court. The vouchers are num¬ 
bered 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33, and the taxes are paid on the rent. They 
do not pay taxes on the value of the building, but on the actual rent 
paid. The report must be made to the municipal tax office as to the 
actual rent. Here it is made out for 2,400 taels a year. That money 
is paid by the compradore, and he takes a receipt. Instead of being 
paid by the compradore this shows it to be paid by the marshal. 

The Chairman. That does not make it clear to me. 

Mr. Fergitsson. I think you had better prepare a statement in 
writing and bring it here. 

Mr. Curtis. I have that here. 

Mr. Fergusson. But you have it in a scattered form, and we want 
a summary. 

Mr. Curtis. I have the summary of all this made out, and if I may 
have it in the record with my evidence it will facilitate the matter, 
and then I can refer to the exhibits on the printed pages. I have a 
voluminous number of exhibits and letters. 

Mr. Fergusson. We want it summarized so that we can see whetfe 
the judge got money by false certification. 

Mr. Curtis. I have the specifications fully drawn up according to 
law, and I have them supported by a statement of facts and law ap¬ 
plicable thereto, and then I have the exhibits duly numbered. 

Mr. Fergusson. That this judge has corruptly received money, 
that is the substance of your charge? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

(Thereupon the committee adjourned until Wednesday, September 
17, 1913, at 10.30 o’clock a. m.) 


X 








1 : 












































Committee on Expenditures 
in the Department of Justice, 

House of Representatives, 
Wednesday , September 17 , 1913. 

The committee this day met, Hon. Robert F. Broussard (chairman) 
presiding. 

The Chairman. I presume we shall continue in the manner in 
which we proceeded the other day, by having Mr. Curtis continue his 
statement. At the close of the hearing the other day, Mr. Curtis, the 
committee decided to ask you to formulate the charges which you 
make against Judge Thayer, specifying each charge and furnishing 
under each specification the data and the evidence which you have to 
bear out the charge. It was also understood that I should look over 
this written statement which you had already prepared, and I have 
gone over that. I suggest that you take the charges, without reading 
what they are, starting with the first and stating in your own way 
what it contains, without all the phraseology which you have in 
making the charge, and then citing the instance, briefly and to the 
point, which causes you to make that specific charge, and then pro¬ 
ceed to the second one, so that the committee may have before it, 
without reading this voluminous statement, a synopsis of what these 
charges are and upon what evidence they are based. I judge that 
the committee would like to have it done that way. I think if you 
follow the document which you have before you it would be better, 
because the charges are set out in particular order, and we would have 
a better understanding of them. 

I wish to state before you proceed, Mr. Curtis, that the friend 
and former law partner of Judge Thayer came here this morning, 
Mr. Coldren, and said that he had no authority to represent the 
judge here, but that he had been associated with him a long time 
and was in some way related to the judge, and asked permission to 
be present. I told him these meetings were open, and he said that 
he might consider it, as a friend, advisable to take such part as the 
committee would permit him to take in regand to the testimony 
which Mr. Curtis is about to give concerning Judge Thayer. I told 
him that so far as I was concerned I should have no objection at all 
to his being present and participating whenever he thought his 
friend’s interests might require his services, but that I would submit 
the matter to the committee, and that I had no doubt the committee 
would be agreeable to that method of procedure. 


21 


22 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


Mr. Coldren, you may take a seat at the table and you may in¬ 
terrupt the committee any time you feel disposed to do so. 

Mr. Curtis, please start with the first charge; state specifically 
what it is, in a brief way, and upon what evidence that charge is 
made. 


STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE F. CURTIS—Continued. 

Mr. Curtis. The first charge alleges that Mr. Thayer went out to 
Shanghai, and landed in Shanghai about the middle of March, 1909; 
that he was there scarcely three months before he left the jurisdic¬ 
tion of China without the knowledge of any official of the United 
States Government within the United States, and without sending 
any certificates of absence or reasons of absence, and went to Rok- 
koan, about 7 or 8 miles from Kobe, Japan, and remained away from 
Shanghai until late in the fall. 

The Chairman. How many months? 

Mr. Curtis. He was absent the first time from the 23d of June, 
1909, to the 20th of September, 1909, and the following year from the 
23d of June, 1910, to the 21st of September, 1910; that the State De¬ 
partment had no knowledge of this; that he drew his salary on cer¬ 
tificates purporting to have been signed in Shanghai, China, during 
those months and bearing his certificate that the money was actually 
due as salary, implying that the services were actually rendered, 
whereas as a matter of fact he was not within the then Empire of 
China, the services were not rendered, the Auditor for the State and 
Other Departments knew nothing about it, as I said before, nor the 
Attorney General, the President, or the State Department, and for 
that time the amount overpaid on those vouchers was $3,888.80, and 
the total amount of the vouchers was $5,333.10. The false vouchers 
amounted to $5,333.10. Part of this money was, of course, due on 
those vouchers for the reason that part of the months, the beginning 
of June and the latter part of September in each year, were earned, 
for the reason that the judge was in China. 

The Chairman. I understand your contention is that under the 
law he had no right to collect salary during that absence? 

Mr. Curtis. That contention is based on section 13 of the Dockery 
Act, Twenty-eighth Statutes at Large, page 210; 

Judges receiving salaries from tlie Treasury of the United States shall be 
paid monthly by the disbursing officer of the Department of Justice, and to 
him all certificates of nonabsence or of the cause of absence of judges in the 
Territories shall be sent. 

That being the case, the fact of no certificate of absence with rea¬ 
sons given, and no certificate of nonabsence, the implication followed 
that he was actually present within the Empire of China, and there¬ 
fore entitled to the salary. 

The Chairman. Upon this specification will you state what evi¬ 
dence you have of the fact that Judge Thayer was not in China at 
that time but at this place to Avhich you have referred in your testi¬ 
mony? 

Mr. Curtis. T was in Shanghai at the time. I was in Kobe on the 
30th of June, 1909, and saw Judge Thayer there, and I have a docu¬ 
ment here signed by Judge Thayer, a legal document, executed by 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


23 


order of the court in Japan, at Kokkosan, Japan, bearing date the 
28th of July, 1909, and bearing the seal of the United States court. 

The Chairman. Where was the seal put on? 

Mr. Curtis. It was put on down in China. I took the order from 
Kokkosan down to Shanghai. 

The Chairman. And there the clerk put the seal on it? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; there is the date. 

The Chairman. Do the duties of Judge Thayer require him to go 
to Kobe, Japan? 

Mr. Curtis. He has no jurisdiction outside of China. 

The Chairman. Does his jurisdiction extend all over China? 

Mr. Curtis. All the open ports of China—Shanghai, Tientsin, 
Hankow, and Canton—and he is supposed to be at those places once a 
year. 

The Chairman. He is supposed to be at each of those places once a 
year? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; although there may be no business there, he 
is supposed to go there. Mr. Thayer left Shanghai, June 23, 1909, 
on board the steamship Tenyo Mam for Kobe, Japan. That fact may 
also be established by the 1 North China Herald for June 26, 1909, 
page 754, which is of record in the Library of Congress. He returned 
to Shanghai from Kobe on board the steamship Derfflinger on the 
20th of September, 1909. I was in Shanghai when he returned. 
That fact may also be established by the North China Herald for 
September 25, 1909, page 750. Then he left again on the 23d of June, 
1910, for Kobe, Japan, on board the steamship Tonkin. That is re¬ 
ported in the passenger list of outgoing passengers in the North China 
Herald for July 1, 1910, page 60, and he returned from Kobe, Japan, 
on September 21, 1910, on board the steamship Tourane. That is re¬ 
ported in the passenger list of incoming passengers in the North 
China Herald for September 23, 1910, page 752. I was in Shanghai 
that year both when he left and when he returned. 

There was business in China that he should have attended to. 

The Chairman. Was there any business pending before the court 
during the period of his absence ? 

Mr. Curtis. Men had been arrested and cases came up for trial in 
the lower court, which was in the hands of the United States Consular 
Court, which had jurisdiction up to $500 in gold in civil cases, and in 
criminal cases the offenses for which the imprisonment was 60 days, 
and also had power to hold for trial any person charged with felony 
that might be brought by any responsible person and hold those 
persons charged with crime to the United States court. Mr. Thayer 
decided that we were not entitled to a grand jury, although the act 
very plainly gives it to us, and held that we were not entitled to jury 
trials, and we had no rules of court except the old rules of 1864, which 
had been made by our then minister at Peking, which were not suit¬ 
able for our court—wholly inadequate—and we were completely at the 
mercy of a young man who was absolutely ignorant of the most ele¬ 
mentary principles of law. 

The Chairman. Who was the young man; was he connected with 
the court at all? 

Mr. Curtis. He was the judge of the consular court, from which 
appeals lie to the United States Court for China. 


24 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


The Chairman. He had no jurisdiction over this particular indi¬ 
vidual ? 

Mr. Curtis. He had no jurisdiction except to hold them for trial. 

The Chairman. Just as a committing magistrate? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And he had to remain in jail during the judge’s 
absence ? 

Mr. Curtis. He had to remain in jail. There was not only one 
case, but several cases which later came up in the judge’s absence. 
There was one admiralty case during the judge’s absence. It was the 
case of the old Chinese war junk Ningpoo , said to have been bought 
by the agents of the Panama Exposition, and she was being taken 
across the Pacific. She got about 60 miles outside of the harbor and 
a little blow came up and she had to put back into the harbor in dis¬ 
tress. Thereupon they discharged her crew. The boat was flying the 
American flag. The crew, under the navigation laws of the United 
States, was entitled to a month’s pay. This was denied them. A 
part of the first month’s pay had been taken by the first mate as graft 
for the privilege of going on board this ship. We sued for the 
month’s pay. There was quite a number of men. The court, the 
young man who had no knowledge of law, held that the case was not 
properly brought in admiralty, and should have been brought in law. 
This young man had been a student interpreter at Peking. Some one 
put a rider on the diplomatic and consular appropriation bill trans¬ 
ferring the judicial duties of the consul general to the vice consul, 
and the only qualification this young vice consul had was that he 
studied the Manchu dialect of the Chinese language and went down 
to Shanghai to act as judge of the United States consular court. * The 
United States judge was away, outside of China, and the citizens of 
the United States were completely at the mercy of this man. 

The Chairman. I understand you to say, then, that the law does 
not give any jurisdiction to anybody else than Judge Thayer? 

Mr. Curtis. But he has jurisdiction up to $500. 

The Chairman. Was that a case below $500? 

Mr. Curtis. The case was below $500. I sued for each one of 
these men. 

The Chairman. Then, properly speaking, the case was tried by 
the proper judicial authority in the first instance? 

Mr. Curtis. One case was. That was the admiralty case, but the 
judge was away. We could not make an appeal to him. The sailors 
being poor men, without any means of livelihood, they were later a 
charge upon the charity of foreign citizens. 

The Chairman. Were they American citizens? 

Mr. Curtis. A number of them were; the others, being under the 
American flag, were entitled to the protection of the United States 
laws and of the American flag. 

The Chairman. What was the outcome of the whole proceeding? 

Mr. Curtis. A number of these men had to be supported by the 
community. 

The Chairman. Did they recover any of their wages? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir. A number of them lost their clothes and 
the little stuff they had in the blow or gale, and then they became 
public charges. To make matters worse, several of them were ar- 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


25 


rested as vagrants, and afterwards thrown into jail and locked up 
after being convicted in the American consular court of vagrancy. 

The Chairman. Were there any other cases besides the case to 
which you have referred? 

Mr. Curtis. There was the case of- 

The Chairman (interposing). Have you the cases cited in the 
statement which you have prepared? 

Mr. Curtis. I have all the cases referred to. 

The Chairman. You have them all? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Curtis. 

Mr. Curtis. Here is the case of Adolph Grimsinger, who was a 
straggler from the crew of the U. S. S. Cincinnati. There is a reward 
of $25 offered by the Navy for stragglers. Instead of the marshal 
going out and arresting this man, the British policemen, employed 
by the municipality of Shanghai, which, by the way, is like a little 
republic, brought the man to the consulate instead of delivering him 
to one of the ships in the harbor, and, then, instead of putting this 
man on board a ship, the following day they took him before the 
consular court, which had no jurisdiction, and tried him. 

The Chairman. Who had jurisdiction? 

Mr. Curtis. The United States naval officers have jurisdiction 
over stragglers and deserters. It is no civil offense for a sailor from 
a United States naval ship to overstay his leave. He was put in jail, 
some time later to be put on board the ship. That night he broke jail. 
There not being any United States citizen jailor to guard the jail, 
although the United States has made liberal provision for one, the 
consul general employed a cheap Sikh Indian, at about $20 (Mexi¬ 
can) a month, to guard the jail. This sailor hit the Sikh jailor 
over the head with a bottle and got away, and several other prison¬ 
ers got away. This prisoner had to remain until Mr. Thayer re¬ 
turned, and then he was tried and sentenced to the penitentiary, 
instead of sending this man aboard the ship. 

The Chairman. That is not a charge against the judge, except 
that the absence of the judge might have delayed the trial? 

Mr. Curtis. He had to wait in jail until the judge came back. 

The Chairman. How long was that? 

Mr. Curtis. This occurred in June, and Judge Thayer did not 
come back until October. 

The Chairman. And he could not get bail except through Judge 
Thayer ? 

Mr. Curtis. Judge Thayer would hold to bail for those offenses. 
The sailor being poor, he could not get bail, even if Mr. Thayer had 
been there; but he was entitled to a speedy trial. 

Mr. Hart. Had Judge Thayer, and no one else, jurisdiction to 
allow bail? 

Mr. Curtis. Of felonies only. 

Mr. Hart. Was this a case of felony ? 

Mr. Curtis. He was held on a felony charge. 

The Chairman. He was held on a felony charge, and no other 
court had jurisdiction over felonies except Judge Thayer? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And Judge Thayer was absent, and therefore the 
man was detained in jail pending the return of the judge? 


26 


CHARGES AGAINST RUEUS H. THAYER. 


Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. In the meantime the consular court had sen¬ 
tenced this young man in June to 60 days’ imprisonment. After the 
60 days were up he had to wait until the judge came back. Had he 
been there the appeal might have been made at once. 

The United States district attorney split the offense, jail break¬ 
ing, into three offenses, made up of jail breaking, assault with a 
deadly weapon, and, third, robbery of the jail key. Under the crim¬ 
inal law those two latter offenses would have been merged into the 
jail breaking, but they made three different offenses. 

The Chairman. Mr. Curtis, the facts we want to get at are the 
charges which you make against the judge, his absence, and his col¬ 
lection of salary during the absence in violation of the law, as you 
have quoted to the committee. Of course if the Department of State 
has a man occupying a position of vice consul who is incompetent to 
occupy that position, clearly the judge is not chargeable with that. 
He is only chargeable with his own acts. His absence is pertinent 
to this investigation, but the fact that a man assuming jurisdiction 
over that case when he had not is not properly chargeable to the 
judge. So please limit your testimony to the charges against the 
judge. We can not investigate the consular service; that does not 
pertain to the jurisdiction of this committee, but to another committee 
of the House. 

Mr. Curtis. Very well. The second specification charges Mr. 
Thayer- 

Mr. Tavenner (interposing). You have read the law requiring 
judges to notify the Department of Justice or the Auditor for the 
Department of Justice when absent from their place of duty. Does 
the law say that the judge personally must notify this authority— 
the Department of Justice. 

Mr. Curtis. Section 13 of the Dockery Act (28 Stat. L., 210) 
says: 

Before transmission to the Department of the Treasury the accounts of dis¬ 
trict attorneys, assistant attorneys, marshals, commissioners, clerks, and other 
officers of the courts of the United States, except consular courts, made out and 
approved as required by law and accounts relating to prisoners convicted or 
held for trial in any court of the United States, and all other accounts relating 
to the business of the Department of Justice or of the courts of the United 
States other than consular courts, shall be sent with their vouchers to the 
Attorney General and examined under his supervision. 

Judges receiving salaries from the Treasury of the United States shall be 
paid monthly by this disbursing officer of the Department of Justice, and to him 
all certificates of nonabsence or of the cause of absence of judges in the Terri¬ 
tories shall be sent. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then, the law is that every judge, when he is away 
from his place of duty, must report to the Auditor for the Depart¬ 
ment of Justice that he has been absent, and state why he has been 
absent ? 

Mr. Curtis. I would not say every judge. I do not know that the 
judges of the United States Supreme Court and of the United States 
Circuit Court of Appeals do. I know that is the case in the Terri¬ 
tory of Alaska. If the marshal does not send it, the judge does not 
get his salary. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether other judges similarly situ¬ 
ated are in the habit of notifying the department that they are 
absent? 



CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 27 

Mr. Curtis. There is no other such court. 

Mr. Tavenner. Does this law only refer to that court? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir. This act was passed in 1894, before this court 
was created. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many months was Judge Thayer absent at 
this time, just approximately? 

Mr. Curtis. Five months and twenty-five days the first time, and 
the second time 10 months and 5 days. In all he was away from 
China in about 3 years 1 year 4 months and 16 days. 

Mr. Fergusson. About one-half of the time? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hart. In three years that he has occupied that office? 

Mr. Curtis. That is, up to October, 1912. 

Mr. Hart. I understand you to say that there is no provision at 
all in the law creating this court or in its rules providing for a vaca¬ 
tion or the manner of obtaining a vacation of the judge? 

Mr. Curtis. No. The act is drawn similar to the act covering the 
United States district courts. China is twice as large as the United 
States- 

Mr. Hart (interposing). Do you think that you could briefly an¬ 
swer that question? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. The act is similar to the act covering the 
United States district courts, and nothing is said about leaves of 
absence. 

The Chairman. You have the act there? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did we not embody that in the testimony taken 
day before yesterday ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; and section 15 of the treaty. 

Mr. Cramton. As I understand your point, it is not only that he 
failed to secure a leave of absence, but he led the department to be¬ 
lieve that he was not absent by filing certificates that were falsely 
dated at Shanghai, thereby giving them to understand that he was 
not absent? 

Mr. Curtis. That is the first specification. Now, in the second 
specification I made the same charge, but I received a letter from 
the Department of State, which is of record here, from Mr. John 
Bassett Moore, in which it is stated that while the Department of 
State had no authority and felt it had no authority to grant leave 
to a United States judge, he stated that Mr. Thayer had notified 
him of his intended leave, but did not say how long he was going 
to stay or how long he would be away. That is the 10 months’ 
absence. 

The Chairman. Ten months consecutively? 

Mr. Curtis. No; in two years. I will read the exhibit, the letter 
from the department, if I may. 

The Chairman. What is it that you wish to read, the letter from 
Mr. Moore? 

Mr. Curtis. The letter on that point. 

The Chairman. As I recall it, you read that the other day. 

Mr. Curtis. I think I referred to it. 

The Chairman. During the 10 months that you speak of now, the 
second period of his absence, was there anyone in jail who was de- 



28 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


prived of an opportunity to present his case before the court because 
of the absence of the judge, and were there any civil suits which 
suffered by virtue of his absence ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you cited those? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; I have referred to them. 

The Chairman. It may be well to go over these in that way, so 
that the committee may have a better understanding of what the 
charges are, and then take up the documents as they are offered, 
either the entire committee or a subcommittee of the entire com¬ 
mittee, and see whether we should have those printed so that 
we might have them in hand to question the witness. I think that 
would be a good way. I think we should have a general statement 
from Mr. Curtis before we undertake to go through the very vol¬ 
uminous evidence and determine whether or not we should have it 
printed, so that each member of the committee may have a copy to 
cross-examine Mr. Curtis. The judge is absent, but he should be 
given a hearing on these charges, and he might want to cross-examine 
the witness and make up the- defense, if it is necessary to make one. 

Mr. Fergusson. I would like to ask Mr. Curtis a question in re¬ 
gard to this first charge. Do you charge that this judge got money 
in the way of salary illegally by sending his certificate from Shang¬ 
hai, where he should have been, instead of disclosing his true where¬ 
abouts, that he got salary that he was not entitled to? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; that is the charge precisely. 

Mr. Fergusson. And therefore he was not entitled to this salary? 

Mr. Curtis. That is it. 

Mr. Hart. This is argumentative, but it is somewhat illuminating. 
I see that the act creating this particular court provides that the court 
shall hold sessions, and that a session of the court shall be held in each 
of these cities at least once annually at stated periods. Has this court 
at any time stated any period when it would hold court in any of 
these jurisdictions, these territorial jurisdictions, and is it not wholly 
within the power of this court to say when it will hold court at any 
particular place, provided, however, they be held once annually? 

Mr. Curtis. That is a correct statement. The court has the power 
to hold court at these various open ports—Canton, Hankau, and 
Tientsin—once annually, and as it suits the convenience of the court. 
The court goes to these places, although there may be no cases to be 
tried. 

Mr. Hart. Then, if Judge Thayer held court in each of these places 
once a year he would be accomplishing the purpose of the act, would 
he not ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes; but that refers to holding court at Tientsin, Han¬ 
kau, and Canton, the seat of the court being at Shanghai. 

Mr. Hart. Can you point to any provision in this act which re¬ 
quires Judge Thayer to hold court at Shanghai at any definite period 
or for any definite term? 

Mr. Curtis. No; there is nothing in the act to that effect. He is 
appointed judge of the United States Court for China, the jurisdic¬ 
tion being in China. For instance, if a case of vagrancy arises in 
Harbin, away up in Manchuria- 

Mr. Hart. Then, Mr. Curtis, if there is nothing in the act which 
requires him to hold court at Shangh ff for any definite term, it is 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 29 

within his judgment as to what time he shall hold court there, is 
it not? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes; if the business is there. 

Mr. Hart. Then his error in not holding court at the times you 
think he should have held it was largely an error of judgment, was 
it not? 

Mr. Curtis. It was, yes; but if I may answer that question further, 
had he been in China we could have reached him. 

Mr. Hart. I do not know whether I made myself clear in the 
question. 

Mr. Curtis. I think I understood your question. You asked 
whether it was an error of judgment for him to leave the Empire of 
China and go to a foreign country. 

Mr. Hart. My question was directed to the holding of court at 
certain periods in China. 

Mr. Curtis. The charge is- 

Mr. Hart. Not the charge, but the fact. 

Mr. Curtis. The fact is that he was outside of the Empire of China 
and not at any place in China where he could have been reached. 

Mr. Hart. Is there anything in the act which requires him to re¬ 
main at Shanghai, China, or in China itself, for any definite term? 

Mr. Curtis. No more than any act creating a United States court 
would require the judge to remain within the territory of the United 
States and not go to Japan or South America. 

Mr. Hart. That is the parallel, is it? 

Mr. Curtis. That is the parallel. In other words, suppose a cir¬ 
cuit judge or a district judge in California was assigned to duty in 
the circuit court of appeals in Seattle and takes a boat from San 
Francisco and goes to Seattle by way of Victoria or Vancouver. 
British Columbia, and on his way spends a month or more at either 
of these British ports, without leave, and charges his hotel expenses 
there and salary to the United States. In such a case I should say he 
would be obtaining money under false pretenses, because he is out¬ 
side the jurisdiction of the court and is not discharging his duties. 
That is a parallel case with the one where Mr. Thayer goes to Canton 
from Shanghai by way of Hongkong, and after spending two and a 
half days at Canton returns to Hongkong and spends two weeks 
there instead of going on to Shanghai, Hongkong being the place 
where he transships, takes another steamer. 

Mr. Hart. In brief, if he had properly performed the duties of his 
office, he would have remained at Shanghai and taken care of his 
cases—is that your idea? 

Mr. Curtis. That is it. 

Mr. Hart. But there is no statutory regulation in regard to that ? 

Mr. Curtis. No more than relates to any court within the United 
States. 

Mr. Hart. Then there is no statutory regulation in regard to this 
court ? 

Mr. Curtis. None as to this court. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did he charge his expenses in Japan to the 
Government ? 

Mr. Curtis. I have that in the third charge. I have gone a little 
ahead. 


30 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


The Chairman. Do not jump; let us get it in the order in which 
you have it there. 

Mr. Curtis. Under the second specification I have made a sum¬ 
mary of the amount of salary due and paid to Judge Thayer from 
the ist day of April, 1911, to the 30th day of October, 1911, and from 
the 1st day of May, 1912, to the 5th day of .October, 1912; the 
amount of salary overpaid on false vouchers—salary vouchers—dur¬ 
ing said periods, together with the total amount set forth on the 
face of said false vouchers during the time Judge Thayer was outside 
of China without leave- 

The Chairman. What is the amount ? 

Mr. Curtis. The amount for 10 months and 7 days is $6,822.14. 
That is the amount of salary he was overpaid during 1911 and 1912. 
The amount of salary due him while in China during April and 
October, 1911, and May and October, 1912, was $1,844.26, making a 
total of $8,666.40. 

The Chairman. And he collected how much ? 

Mr. Curtis. That made the total amount $8,666.40. 

The Chairman. Your contention is that he ought not to have been 
paid for the time he was absent from the jurisdiction of the court ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes; that he was overpaid. 

The Chairman. And that represents the time he was absent from 
the jurisdiction of the court, does it? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. He was overpaid $6,822.14. 

The Chairman. Your contention is that under the law he is not 
entitled to that and that his vouchers were falsely made ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. 

The Chairman. Because he led the Government to believe he was 
performing the duties of his office, while, in fact, he was not there at 
all. but in some other country? 

Mr. Curtis. This second charge embraces $8,666.40. 

The Chairman. Do you answer “ yes ” or no ” to that? 

Mr. Curtis. I ought to explain- 

The Chairman. No; give me your answer to that. You have given 
us two items, and the total of the two items, and you have said he 
was overpaid $6,000 and some odd dollars. That represents-- 

Mr. Curtis. It does not amount- 

The Chairman. I just want to identify these items. The item of 
$6,000 and some odd dollars represents salary certified to by Judge 
Thayer as being due him for the performance of his duty, when, as 
a matter of fact, he was not in China and within the jurisdiction of 
his court, but somewhere else, and your contention is that he was not 
entitled to that $6,000 and some odd dollars? 

Mr. Curtis. That is it, exactly. 

The Chairman. That is the gravamen of your charge ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. 

The Chairman. And he had collected altogether $8,000 and some 
odd dollars during the period you mention, and your contention is 
that $6,000 and some odd dollars ought not to have been paid? 

Mr. Curtis. That is the case. 

The Chairman. Now, pass on to the next specification. 

Mr. Curtis. My third specification charges that Judge Thayer on 
the 31st day of March, 1910, made false demands and claims or caused 
them to be made, which demands and claims were presented for pay- 




CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 31 

ment and approval at Washington for expenses and salary on a trip 
to Canton. 

Mr. Fergusson. That is the third specification, you say? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes; that is the third specification. 

Mr. Fergusson. And you say you have those vouchers and docu¬ 
ments ? 

Mr. Curtis. I have those vouchers and documents here under the 
seal of the Secretary of the Treasury. 

The Chairman. We will not look at those now, and I will ask you 
to simply answer this question: What is the amount of the over¬ 
charges on these false vouchers and were the amounts collected from 
the Government? 

Mr. Curtis. The amount paid on the face of these false vouchers 
was $194.94, and the amount overpaid was $74.94 for hotel expenses 
for two weeks. 

The Chairman. Now, how do you know that that amount of $74.94 
was an overcharge? 

Mr. Curtis. The vouchers show that $74.94 was the actual amount 
paid for expenses during the time he remained at Hongkong when 
he should have been in Shanghai, Hongkong being a British colony 
and Judge Thayer having absolutely no duties to perform there, his 
only reason for stopping at Hongkong being to transship from the 
steamer from Shanghai to Canton, and on his return on the boat on 
which he came from Canton transship to Shanghai. 

The Chairman. Was it necessary to go to Hongkong in order to 
reach his other jurisdiction? 

Mr. Curtis. It was necessary to go to Hongkong to go to Canton. 

The Chairman. I understand that he had to transship there, and 
I wish you would state whether the schedules were such as to make it 
necessary for him to stop there and await the next ship in order to 
proceed on his journey ? 

Mr. Curtis. No; there is a boat leaving Hongkong every evening 
at about 5 or 6 o’clock for Canton, and there is a train running now 
from Kowloon, which is across the bay from Hongkong, to Canton. 
He was in Canton for two days and a half. 

Mr. Hart. You say there is a train running now; was there a train 
running then? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. He stayed in Hongkong two weeks longer than 
necessary. A steamer was expected during that time—a German 
around-the-world pleasure trip, excursion ship Cleveland, and the 
steamer carried about 700 or 800 passengers, excursionists. He 
awaited the arrival of that steamer at Hongkong, and he stayed there 
and had the society of those passengers. 

Mr. Hart. Did he charge his expenses to the Government for the 
time he spent there? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes; he charged his expenses to the Government while 
there. The Auditor for the State Department held up the vouchers 
for these expenses, and Mr. Thayer sought to justify the charging of 
his hotel expenses to the fact that there was a rumor of a possible 
uprising in Canton against the foreigners. Although his stenogra¬ 
pher and district attorney had returned to Shanghai,he stayed over at 
Hongkong, 90 miles from Canton, for fear of an uprising there, and 
in face of the fact that the United States has a consul general at 
Canton and a consul general at Hongkong. He stayed there not- 


32 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


withstanding the fact that he had no diplomatic duties to perform 
and not anything to do with the Diplomatic Service, directly or 
indirectly. 

The Chairman. Did the Auditor for the State Department finally 
allow these expenses ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes; on the representation of Judge Thayer that 
there might have been an uprising there he allowed the expenses. 
But under the Dockery Act this may be opened at any time; that is, 
these items may be opened at any time. As a matter of fact, the State 
Department is not the administrative branch that has the authority 
to examine these accounts; the examination should have been made 
by the Department of Justice. 

The Chairman. I know; but the Auditor for the State and Other 
Departments is the official who examines these vouchers of judicial 
officers, and he is the official to whom I referred when I asked you 
whether the Auditor for the State and Other Departments had ap¬ 
proved these vouchers and permitted the payment of this money. 

Mr. Curtis. Yes; the payment of the money was approved in face 
of the holding up of these accounts in the first instance and after 
the receipt of Judge Thayer’s letter. But the letter was not ad¬ 
dressed to the auditor, but to the district attorney, in which letter 
the judge explained his reasons, and the district attorney forwarded 
that letter to the auditor, which letter I have here. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions as to this specifi¬ 
cation ? 

Mr. Fergusson. As shown by charge 3, how much was wrongfully 
paid to Judge Thayer under these vouchers? 

Mr. Curtis. The amount overpaid on those vouchers was $74.94, 
and the time he was absent without leave during that time was 14 
days, at $22.22 a day, making $311.08. 

Mr. Fergusson. That is the substance of your third charge? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Fergusson. And you profess to have the vouchers showing 
those things? 

Mr. Curtis. I have the vouchers under the seal of the Department 
of State. 

Mr. Fergusson. They are here now ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, go ahead with charge 4. 

Mr. Curtis. I might say that the next count which I have rela¬ 
tion to- 

Mr. Fergusson. Is that charge 4? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. It is the charge as to the collection of per¬ 
quisites from the estates of citizens of the United States dying in 
China leaving there no legal representatives. I charge that Judge 
Thayer’s holding that the United States court there has probate 
jurisdiction over all amounts over $500 of citizens dying intestate is 
in direct violation of the act creating that court and in direct viola¬ 
tion of sections 1709 and 1710 of the Revised Statutes, and that the 
decision of the United States Court for China holding that the 
United States has probate jurisdiction was made for the sole pur¬ 
pose of grafting, and that they have been grafting on estates there 
of citizens dying intestate, that they have not made returns or in- 



CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 33 

ventories as required by law, and have not even returned the names 
of citizens who have died there, but have returned the estates as of 
certain docket numbers. I charge that they have been collecting 
perquisites from the estates for their own uses, and I am informed 
and believe, from what clients of mine have told me, and I charge, 
that these estates have been looted. In support of that I ask leave 
to show that they have rendered a decision to the effect that the 
court has probate jurisdiction; I have a copy of the decision in 
re the Pratt probate case. I wish to state that if the committee 
will summon Sir. Latham, of the office of the Auditor for the State 
Department, who has charge of estates of citizens dying abroad, it 
will be found that no inventories have been filed with regard to 
estates of citizens of the United States who have died in China since 
this court was created. In fact, no inventories have been filed since 
the time of John Goodnow, in 1897, who was under precisely the 
same charges that I am now bringing, and who was sued on his official 
bond; the American Surety Co. allowed judgment to go against it 
by default, and Mr. Goodnow was permitted to resign, but he never 
came back to the United States. 

The Chairman. Let us see whether we can not get that in definite 
shape. You claim that that court has no jurisdiction in matters of 
estates of citizens who die in China? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. The act provides specifically that the United 
States Court for China shall have and exercise supervisory control 
over the discharge by consuls and vice consuls of the duties pre¬ 
scribed by the laws of the United States relating to the estates of 
decedents in China. 

Mr. Bailey. Who has probate jurisdiction? 

Mr. Curtis. The probate court of the decedent’s domicile in the 
United States, and under the treaty as set forth here China has only 
given the United States the right to decide questions arising be¬ 
tween citizens of the United States in China, and has given the 
United States no right to decide between citizens in China and citi¬ 
zens in the United States. If a person dies in China leaving next 
of kin or creditors in the United States, or if a will turns up with 
two witnesses or with three witnesses, as required by the State of 
Maine, this court has absolutely no probate jurisdiction to determine 
what constitutes a due execution of the will or as to the number of 
witnesses necessary. That is a right reserved to the States under 
the general laws of the United States and has never been given to 
the United States. In the Constitution it is a right reserved to the 
States. 

The Chairman. Assuming that you are correct in your interpre¬ 
tation of the law, that that court has no jurisdiction in the matter 
of settling estates, do you claim that the judge has assumed juris¬ 
diction over such cases? 

Mr. Curtis. I have a decision here to show that he has. 

The Chairman. Has he exercised that jurisdiction? 

Mr. Curtis. He has exercised that jurisdiction, and the ruling is 
made in that decision that that court not only has jurisdiction, but 
that the lower court has jurisdiction up to $500, so that they have 
two courts with probate jurisdiction in the same place. 

The Chairman. Has that jurisdiction been exercised by either or 
both of these courts? 


9997—13 - 3 


34 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


Mr. Curtis. It has been exercised by both of them. 

The Chairman. Have you a list of the estates that have been 
settled under this assumption of jurisdiction on the part of Judge 
Thayer ? 

Mr. Curtis. I have the docket numbers. 

The Chairman. Do you know who the parties are? 

Mr. Curtis. I do not, except as to two of them. 

The Chairman. Can you ascertain from the docket numbers just 
whose estates are involved ? 

Mr. Curtis. No; it is impossible. That is one of my complaints. 

The Chairman. Your complaint is, first, that they have no such 
jurisdiction, and, second, that they are exercising that jurisdiction? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Your next complaint is that tliey simply number 
these estates without saying whose estates they are and that they loot 
the estates? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And cover up the evidence by not stating the 
names of the decedents ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; that is, as far as Washington knows any¬ 
thing about it. 

The Chairman. And as far as the next of kin know anything 
about it? 

Mr. Curtis. Well, I will not say that the next of kin do not know 
and do not get some of this money; they probably get the major 
part of it, but some do not get anything out of an estate. You take 
the cases of prostitutes who die out there, and their relatives will not 
care to acknowledge them. 

The Chairman. Have you any cases of that character to cite to us, 
where a prostitute has died out there with an estate and where the 
estate has been administered by the usurpation of this jurisdiction 
on the part of Judge Thayer and where the next of kin have not 
received the money ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes; I can cite the case of a woman named Allie 
Duncan; I think her real name was Gonzales. I might state that I 
have a client out there- 

Mr. Hart. "Where did she die? 

Mr. Curtis. At Shanghai. 

Mr. Hart. When did she die? 

Mr. Curtis. She died in the month of July, I think, 1912. 

Mr. Hart. Did anybody represent her as the legal representative of 
her estate? 

Mr. Curtis. No. Judge Thayer at that time was in England- 

Mr. Hart. I am trying to carry my thought along. Did anybody 
represent her as a lawyer? 

Mr. Curtis. No one. 

Mr. Hart. Did she have any recognized heirs in Shanghai or else¬ 
where that you know about? 

Mr. Curtis. I understood that she had relatives in San Francisco. 

Mr. Hart. About what was the extent of her property, and was it 
s^eal or personal? 

Mr. Curtis. It was personal property. 

Mr. Hart. About what was the amount of it ? 



CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


35 


Mr. Curtis. I do not know the full amount of it, but there was a 
very long inventory, which I saw published in the North China Daily 
News. 

Mr. Hart. Then there was an inventory. In what court was that 
inventory filed? 

Mr. Curtis. There w r as no inventory filed. It came about in this 
way: The stenographer of the court, a man named Mr. Murray, took 
charge of the estate. I had a client named Lee Tai, who is a large 
furniture dealer, and who had some claims against this woman. Mur¬ 
ray advertised in the North China Daily News that this property 
would be sold, naming a lot of household furniture, and Lee Tai 
wanted to protect himself. I saw Murray and I said, “ What au¬ 
thority have you to handle this estate and to publish yourself as the 
administrator of the estate? ” He said, “ I have been appointed by 
a cablegram from England signed by Judge Thayer.” 

Mr. Hart. If the name of Allie Duncan appeared in the proceed¬ 
ings in this case and in the advertisements, it probably appeared in 
the docket, did it not? 

Mr. Curtis. It would appear in the docket. 

Mr. Hart. If it appeared in the docket in this case, how do you 
account for the names not appearing in the other cases ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is where I misunderstood you. I am only re¬ 
ferring to the accounts sent on to Washington and as to certain fees 
charged against estates. 

Mr. Hart. Then the names of all these deceased persons may be 
obtained by a reference to the docket at Shanghai ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. I went to the State Department and asked if 
they had them, but they could not furnish them; they made a re¬ 
quest for them, but they have not received them, and since that re¬ 
quest the district attorney has been on. I do not know what they 
have done. 

Mr. Fergusson. You do not know whether Judge Thayer got. any 
money wrongfully? 

Mr. Curtis. I do not think he shared in it, but he made it possible 
for other men to handle the estates and wrongfully collect fees. 
He kne^w the statutes and knew that these fees were being wrongfully 
charged and that perquisites have been charged that should not have 
been charged and that the money collected was not deposited as it 
should have been deposited. 

Mr. Fergusson. And that is contrary to law, you claim ? 

Mr. Curtis. It is contrary to the statute, which says that all money 
received in the name of the United States must be deposited wdth 
the Treasurer of the United States, to be drawn against by vouchers. 

Mr. Hart. Llis judicial construction of the statute was that he had 
this authority. Has there ever been a review by any other court of 
that construction? 

Mr. Curtis. It was sought to be reviewed in the Cunningham case. 
If I may go into that case, I would say that Mr. Cunningham-- 

Mr. Hart. Not for the purpose of my question, unless the chair¬ 
man wants it. 

Mr. Curtis. I can show you how we sought to review it. The case 
was taken up in the circuit court of appeals. Mr. Cunningham died 


36 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


out there leaving a very large estate. This was before this court was 
established. The consul general, James L. Rodgers, administered the 
estate and transmitted some $44,000 gold to one of the heirs. The 
will was a faulty will, we claimed, in that it only had two witnesses, 
whereas the laws of the State of Maine, the decedent’s domicile, re¬ 
quired three witnesses. In that case the consul would not accept 
service and the haarshal would not make service. Later Mr. Rodgers 
left the town. Then complaint was made to Washington and con¬ 
sent was secured to waive service. Suit was filed and Judge Wilfley 
said he would rule against me whatever the case was, and he did. 
I filed a complaint, and they filed a plea in bar, and instead of filing 
a replication I filed a demurrer, which was overruled. That, to 
all intents and purposes, was a final judgment, and the case was 
taken up on appeal, as all other cases had been before that, but the 
court held that it should have come up on a writ of error. After 
argument before the circuit court of appeals in San Francisco it 
was held that the case was not brought up on final judgment and 
that it should have been brought up on a writ of error instead of on an 
appeal, and the case went off. 

The Chairman. That was during Judge Wilfley’s time? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Hart. Since then has any case been taken up to ascertain the 
jurisdiction Judge Thayer had in China in connection with the court 
created by this act? 

Mr. Curtis. No ; no case has been taken up. It is a very costly pro¬ 
ceeding to go to San Francisco, as it is 7,000 miles away. 

The Chairman. The question was asked whether that matter had 
been taken up with the appellate court and whether judgment had 
been rendered as to the jurisdiction of Judge Thayer. 

Mr. Curtis. It might be better understood if I could give the local 
coloring out there. A person who dies intestate, leaving no legal 
representatives, has nobody to look after his interests, he is friend¬ 
less; for that very reason in 1792 Congress, in creating the State 
Department, imposed the duty upon consuls of the United States of 
taking charge of the estates of citizens dying abroad, in countries 
which permitted them to act, to collect their estates, pay their debts, 
and to transmit the balance to the Treasurer of the United States 
to be holden in trust for the legal representatives of the decedents. 
That is specifically described by sections 1709 and 1710 of the Re¬ 
vised Statutes. 

The Chairman. That law allows fees? 

Mr. Curtis. To the United States. 

The Chairman. To the United States, but not to the officers. The 
duty of the officer under that act is to take the entire estate in charge, 
pay off the indebtedness, and transmit the entire amount left over 
to the Treasury of the United States ? 

Mr. Curtis. To the Treasury of the United States as the holder 
in trust. 

The Chairman. And your contention is that instead of doing that 
fees are being charged by the court? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That fees are being charged by the court after 
having assumed jurisdiction over these estates. What has the State 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


37 


Department held with reference to these matters? Clearly the State 
Department is aware of the fact that fees are being charged, because 
when the settlement is made the accounting would show the amount 
that has been charged and retained out of the estate for fees. What 
has the State Department held in regard to that matter? 

Mr. Curtis. The State Department says that the United States 
Court for China, having the jurisdiction of a United States court, has 
held that it had probate jurisdiction, and that the department could 
not go against the decision of a United States court. 

The Chairman. That is the holding as to the jurisdiction, but I 
have asked what they held in regard to the retention of fees. What 
has the State Department held as to the retention of fees, amounting 
to 1 per cent, I believe you said, by officers appointed by Judge 
Thayer to administer estates? 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Carr says he knows nothing about it. 

The Chairman. It seems to me that when they give an accounting 
of the estate, and when they have paid off certain debts due by the 
estate, unless they suppress the fact that they are retaining 1 per cent, 
or whatever per cent it may be, from the assets of the estate, the State 
Department must know the amount of fees retained out of the estate. 

Mr. Curtis. The fees are much more. They were 2 per cent until 
recently- 

The Chairman (interposing). Who fixes the fees? 

Mr. Curtis. The Department of State or the President fixes them. 

The Chairman. They are fixed here at Washington? 

Mr. Curtis. But in addition to those fees there are other fees that 
are charged; there are perquisite fees charged for collecting the 
money. 

The Chairman. Do you make that charge now ? 

Mr. Curtis. I make that charge. 

The Chairman. Then you can pass on to the other ones. 

Mr. Fergusson. Under this fourth charge you charge that Judge 
Thayer, or some one under him, got certain fees illegally from the 
estates of decedents in that country ? 

Mr. Curtis. I charge that. 

Mr. Fergusson. And you state that you have among your papers 
vouchers showing that fact ? 

Mr. Curtis. I charge that I have vouchers here showing that no 
inventories of estates have been sent except in two cases, one of which 
was the case of a man who died in London- 

Mr. Fergusson (interposing). Can you specify where Judge Thayer 
got anything wrongfully from the administration of these estates? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir; I can not. 

The Chairman. Suppose you pass on to the other charges. 

Mr. Curtis. My other charges relate to malfeasance in office, and I 
do not know whether this committee would have jurisdiction to go 
into that or not—that is, taking fees for filing cases, but I can- 

Mr. Hart (interposing). Did he do these things in his judicial 
capacity ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; and I have the cases here set forth in detail. 

Mr. Fergusson. That is under the fifth specification, is it not? 

Mr. Curtis. The next specification I should have gone into, and I 
will go into that now. 


38 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


The Chairman. Is that No. 5? 

Mr. Curtis. This will be No. 4. 

The Chairman. No, sir; No. 4 pertains to the assumption of juris¬ 
diction by the court in probate matters. I would suggest that you 
keep them in the same order, so that we may not change the order in 
which you have fixed them yourself. 

Mr. Curtis. The fourth specification goes into the charge, or makes 
the charge, that Mr. Thayer, in collusion with Mr. Wilder and others 
out there, entered into an agreement to pay from funds of the United 
States $200 per month for the rent of a building at No. 12 Whangpoo 
Road, to be used as a United States court building, and that con¬ 
tract is on file here at the State Department. The actual rent of this 
building, as shown by the municipal tax receipts, is 200 taels per 
month, which, at exchange 60, amounts to $120 in gold a month, 
and, notwithstanding that the actual rent of the building is $120 
gold, or 200 taels per month, the Government is charged $200 per 
month, making a difference of $80 per month. The vouchers covering 
this transaction are set forth here, and all the details going to make 
up this charge are here. I might say, in explanation of this matter^ 
that Mr. Wilder, the consul general, is empowered by law to expend 
an amount equal to 20 per cent of his salary for rent of consular 
offices. His salary is $8,000 per annum, and he is authorized by law 
to expend 20 per cent of the amount of his salary for the rent of 
consular offices. Now, instead of entering into a contract for rent 
of offices alone, he entered into a contract for the rent of five buildings,, 
four of which are in a row on Whangpoo Road, numbered, respec¬ 
tively, 13, 14, 15, and 16 Whangpoo Road, and the fifth building is. 
numbered 12 Whangpoo Road, and that is used for the court. He 
rents these five buildings at a total rental, as shown by this contract, 
of 700 taels per month, or 8,400 taels per year, which, at exchange 
60, amounts to $5,040 in gold. Sometimes it would be a little more 
than at other times, when the rate of exchange is higher. Each of 
these four buildings in the row had a market rental value of 75 taels 
per month, or $45 per month. Mr. Wilder made a contract with the 
postal agent for No. 16 Whangpoo Road and the basement of No. 15 
Whangpoo Road at $600 per annum, or $50 per month. The postal 
agent used the basement of No. 16 and the basement of No. 15 
Whangpoo Road for the business of the post office, and the upper 
floors of No. 16 he used for residential purposes, but his vouchers 
against the Post Office Department for the rent of these buildings 
represent that the buildings are used solely and exclusively for 
official purposes. 

Mr. Fergusson. Can you show that? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. The second and third floors and attic of 
No. 15 Whangpoo Road are rented at $100 per month for the pur¬ 
poses of a jail. There is no yard on these premises where the pris¬ 
oners can exercise; in summer the climate is a deadly one, especially 
in the latter part of the summer, and Asiatic cholera, dysentery, and 
other diseases prevail; yet no proper provision is made for the pris¬ 
oners in that regard. 'The British Government takes care of its 
prisoners in a humane manner, but our prisoners are confined in this 
attic. 

Mr. Fergusson. What does Judge Thayer have to do with that? 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


39 


Mr. Curtis. Mr. Thayer authorized his marshal to enter into a 
contract to take one of these buildings at the rental I have stated* 
knowing at the time that the buildings had been rented, as shown 
by various tax receipts, at $200 taels, or $120, per month. 

Mr. Fergusson. Did Judge Thayer do that? 

Mr. Curtis. He authorized it. 

Mr. Hart. Did Judge Thayer’s wrong consist in certifying to 
the rents? I believe you stated on your former hearing that he 
certified the rents improperly. 

Mr. Curtis. Pie knows about all these things. 

Mr. Hart. Will you answer my question? 

Mr. Curtis. I beg your pardon. 

Mr. Hart. I believe you stated on your former hearing that the 
wrong of Judge Thayer consisted in the fact that he improperly 
certified the rents. 

Mr. Curtis. Well, the vouchers show the names of the persons who 
paid the money and the names of the persons who received it. 

Mr. Hart. I do not make myself clear, evidently. Judge Thayer 
certifies to the United States Government what amount is expended 
for rents, does he not? That is a part of his duty, is it not? In 
other words, he signs the vouchers. 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir; I would like to explain that. It is a very 
unusual situation in China, and there is no place like it in the world. 
China is a country where all business is done through what is called 
a compradore, who is a sort of financial agent. He expends money 
for his principals and accounts for all balances due the Government* 
and there is no corporation in China that I know of, outside of the 
Standard Oil Co., that does not make use of a compradore in attend¬ 
ing to its business affairs. Even the banks have compradores. They 
give bonds and are responsible for the collection of money by them. 
The United States court there has been following that system for 
years—in fact, ever since it was created—and the vouchers show that 
the money for the rent of the court building is paid by the compra¬ 
dore of the United States court, and that it is paid to the China 
Realty Co., the contract having been signed by the marshal of the 
court. 

Mr. Hart. I understood you to say on your former hearing that 
the judge signed some certificate or some voucher or some paper con¬ 
cerning these rents, or certifying to the amount of the rents, which 
was deceiving. Now, is that true or not? 

Mr. Curtis. The judge’s name does not appear on them. 

Mr. Hart. His name does not appear on any paper at all concern¬ 
ing the rental of those buildings? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir. 

Mr. Cramton. I understand your criticism of the judge to be that 
he authorized a contract which charges the Government—that is* 
that he authorized this rent contract. 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hart. Was that authority given in writing or orally? 

Mr. Curtis. Presumably it was given orally. 

Mr. Hart. Do you know what the fact is? 

Mr. Curtis. I do not know how it was given. I have no evidence 
to show that he wrote it, but I have evidence of the contract itself, 
which is signed by the marshal of the United States court, and I 


40 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


know that he would not make a contract without being authorized by 

the judge. . 

The Chairman. This being the court building itseli ? 

]Vtr* Curtis "Y^gs sir* 

Mr. Cramton. Is the jail included in that building? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir. . ... 

Mr- Cramton. What is Judge Thayer’s connection with this jail 

proposition? . 

Mr. Curtis. This is a jail for the United States prisoners as well 
as for the consular court prisoners, and Judge Thayer knows where 

the jail is. . . . 0 

Mr. Cramton. Does he have anything to do with its selection . 

Mr. Curtis. Only by implication; but I presume the judge of the 
United States court would have something to say about it, but I do 
not know. That is only my own assumption. It is a matter of 
common knowledge out there that the rent of this building is not 
worth more than 75 taels per month, or $45 per month, and only the 
second, third, and attic floors of that building are rented by the 
Government for $100 per month. 

Mr. Fergusson. Do you charge that there is a rake-off in this mat¬ 
ter of rent, or not? 

Mr. Curtis. I say that in one sense, but in another sense it may be 
possible that Mr. Thayer and Mr. Wilder have taken money from one 
appropriation or money appropriated for one purpose and applied it 
to another so as to make the rent cheaper for the United States con¬ 
sular buildings at Nos. 13 and 14 Whangpoo Road. 

Mr. Fergusson. Have you anything to show that? 

Mr. Curtis. The rentals paid by Mr. Wilder would tend to show 
that, because the actual rent is 25 per cent higher than the market 
rent. 

Mr. Fergusson. Who gets that 25 per cent? 

Mr. Curtis. I do not know. 

Mr. Fergusson. You do not charge that Judge Thayer does? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir; I do not know. 

Mr. Bailey. You charge collusion in the matter. 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; I charge collusion in the matter, and I 
charge that it is a direct violation of the laws of the United States 
to take money from one appropriation, or to take money appropri¬ 
ated for one purpose and use it for another. There is an opinion 
by the Attorney General that says that this is a violation of law, 
and that the department doing that would have to refund the amount 
diverted to the proper appropriation. I say further that it is in¬ 
humane to keep prisoners in a building without any place in which 
to exercise, and that it is inhumane to hold them there for months 
for trial. The other countries out there have proper jail buildings 
with compounds where the men can take exercise. 

The Chairman. That would be more properly a charge against 
the marshal than against the judge, because the marshal is the 
custodian of the prisoners, and he is presumed to provide for them 
in the safest manner possible, there being no common jail over 
there in which to place them. 

Mr. Curtis. The Government appropriates something over $4,000 
for the care of prisoners out there. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 41 

The Chairman. That is turned over to the marshal, is it not? The 
prisoners are in the custody of the marshal, are they not? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, we can pass on to the other charge. What 
is the next charge? 

Mr. Curtis. Before leaving the last charge, I might say that the 
buildings for the United States court, while certified as being used 
solely for the business of the court, are being used for residential 
purposes by the marshal and the judge while there. The judge is 
there a part of the time, and while there he uses the building for 
residential purposes, and the marshal does also. They get the benefit 
of light and heat and janitor service. At Nos. 13 and 14 Whangpoo 
Road, at the consulate, Mr. George C. Hanson and a man named 
Hadley had quarters for which they were charged a ridiculously low 
amount as compared with $1,200 a year charged the United States 
Government for practically the same sized rooms in other buildings. 
Mr. Hadley’s annual rental for the third floor of No. 14 Whangpoo 
Road is only $75 a year, and even that amount he did not pay. 

The Chairman. What does the judge pay for his quarters? 

Mr. Curtis. Nothing. 

The Chairman. What does the marshal pay for his quarters ? 

Mr. Curtis. Nothing. 

The Chairman. Are they men of families? 

Mr. Curtis. Judge Thayer’s family has been away during the 
years 1911 and 1912. 

The Chairman. But when the families are there, both occupy these 
quarters ? 

Mr. Curtis. The family of the postal official does. 

The marshal is an unmarried man. The family of the vice consul, 
Mr. Hadley, is there. 

The Chairman. We have nothing to do with that. You say that 
the judge occupies a part of the building that the Government pays 
rent for as a court building as a residence for himself while there ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And that the marshal does the same thing ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And that they pay no rent at all ? 

Mr. Curtis. They pay no rent at all. 

The Chairman. And the rent of those quarters is included in the 
charge against the Government for the rent of the court building, 
marshal’s office, etc.? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Fergusson. How many specifications have you there? 

Mr. Curtis. Nine specifications; but in one of these specifications 
I make several other charges, as I did not care to embrace them in 
separate and distinct specifications. 

Mr. Fergusson. Our questions are intended to help you to get the 
matter in such shape as we will need it for the purpose of presenting 
it anywhere else. In other words, we are trying to help you to get 
it in proper form. I am so constituted that I must have specific 
things before me. 


42 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


Mr. Curtis. I have given a summary here, and I have filed a sum¬ 
mary here to-day. I have these specific charges set out. This work 
is very much like Pliny’s description of his house- 

Mr. Fergusson (interposing). You say you have the vouchers, and 
you are supposed to know what they relate to. I would suggest that 
this matter be put under appropriate headings, numbered, say 1, 
2, 3, 4, 5, etc. That would greatly facilitate the committee’s consid¬ 
eration of the matter. 

Mr. Curtis. I have drawn up the charges specifically, just as a 
lawyer would draw them up as a case for presentation in a court. 
Under each charge I have given the law and the facts, and I refer to 
the evidence which has been arranged in proper form. All of that 
is here. 

The Chairman. I wanted the committee to get a clear understand¬ 
ing of what these charges consist of without reading through 150 
pages of matter. After we have gone through with it m that way we 
will then be in a position to decide whether all of this matter ought 
to be printed, so as to permit the people who are affected by these 
charges to have knowledge of them, and thus give them an oppor¬ 
tunity to study the charges and be given a hearing. 

Mr. Cramton. It seems to me that Mr. Curtis could take one sheet 
of paper and present on it in condensed form a statement of this mat¬ 
ter. We are not asking him now to prove his case, but to tell us what 
it is about. 

Mr. Curtis. I can read this paper [exhibiting it] if you like, or if 
you could have this printed so that you gentlemen could refer to it 
and question me and get all the details and facts- 

The Chairman (interposing). We want first to find out w T hether 
that ought to be printed. 

' Mr. Fergusson. We want to find out first whether you have a 
prima facie case. 

Mr. Curtis. I have the evidence here under the seal of the Depart¬ 
ment of State and under the seal of the Treasury Department, show¬ 
ing all these vouchers- 

Mr. Hart. The committee evidently desires first to see the sub¬ 
stance of the charges. 

Mr. Cramton. We want to know whether the charges you make, 
even though they are proven, are such as would make a case 
against these officials. 

Mr. Curtis. I have given so far facts that are established by docu¬ 
mentary evidence, under the seal of the Department of State and 
under the seal of the Treasury Department. 

Mr. Hart. It would very much facilitate the next hearing on this 
matter if Mr. Curtis would prepare a brief statement of his charges 
under the proper headings- 

The Chairman (interposing). He has the charges set forth at 
length in this document. I have gone over it, and it would take us 
three or four days to read this carefully. If we could get the sub¬ 
stance of these charges before us and examine him with reference to 
the particular charges covered by the specifications, we could then 
decide whether we would want to have all of this matter printed so 
as to afford an opportunity to those who are affected by these charges 
to know just what the charges are and what specifications they are 






CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


43 


predicated upon. The State Department might want to be heard on 
this matter, and probably we might want to hear the State 
Department. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Curtis has a summary of these charges here, 
and I do not believe that this summary would take up much room. 
If this summary were printed we could read that and have a correct 
understanding of the charges. If we could have that put in the 
record of this meeting to-day we could read it before the next hear¬ 
ing. I presume that this summary covers every charge he has made, 
and it probably would not cover many printed pages. 

The Chairman. If the committee decides to have that done, it can 
be done. I have not seen that document. 

Mr. Curtis. I might say to the committee that I have compiled 
these charges with the greatest care and have verified every state¬ 
ment I have made by the documentary evidence. As to the departure 
of Mr. Thayer and my own notes here on that phase of the matter, I 
have verified those statements by consulting papers on file in the 
Library of Congress showing the date on which he sailed and the 
date of his return. As to the amount of rent paid, that is verified by 
the vouchers, and the actual amount which should have been paid for 
rent is verified by tax receipts, and I would respectfully submit that 
if what I have set out here in relation to the charges as to the pay¬ 
ment of rent does not constitute a prima facie case I will quit right 
here. I have spent thousands of dollars and traveled thousands of 
miles on account of this matter. This is not the first time I have 
made a trip to the United States in reference to matters in China. 
I came here in 1905. I had obtained a judgment against the American 
Surety Co. for $6,000, but before I got through with it I had to settle 
with them and take 50 per cent of that amount. They had a so-called 
reorganization of the Consular Service which was brought about by 
a couple of men down at the Willard Hotel, but the result of the 
whole so-called consular-reform convention held on the 13th and 14th 
of March, 1906, was to increase the salaries of the consular offices 
33J per cent and fill them with inefficient men. 

Mr. Cramton. I have glanced over this paper, and find that the 
first portion of it is a recital covering very much the same ground 
that Mr. Curtis has already gone over before us. From the point 
beginning where I have the paper open, he gets down to a sort of 
condensed statement of his specifications, referring to them by 
numbers. This is considerably condensed as compared with the 
other papers here, but it is still quite voluminous, and includes matter 
of evidence rather than charges. 

The Chairman. We can have that part of it typewritten so that 
the members of the committee may have a copy of it before the next 
meeting. 

Mr. Cramton. It would be better if we could further condense 
that. 

The Chairman. Every member of the committee can have a copy 
of that statement. I think every member of the committee should 
have a copy of that so that when we meet day after to-morrow the 
committee will have an understanding of what these charges are. 
I have some sort of knowledge of them, because I went over this 
document with Mr. Curtis, but it is so voluminous that we can not 


44 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


get copies of it. I think that the evidence produced by Mr. Curtis 
justifies an investigation of this entire subject. That is my own 
judgment. 

Mr. Fergusson. I think that is a good suggestion, to have that 
matter typewritten. 

The Chairman. If the committee says so, I can have this matter 
typewritten and a copy of it transmitted to each member of the 
committee. 

The matter referred to is as follows: 

SUMMARY OF CHARGES OF MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER, 
JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

There are nine charges set forth in specifications and supported by docu¬ 
mentary evidence under the seals of the Department of State, the Treasury 
Department, the United States Court for China, and that of the United States 
consulate at Shanghai, China. 

The first four specifications charge a violation of section 35 of the United 
States Criminal Code, which was before the codification of the criminal laws 
section 5438 of the Revised Statutes. Under these four specifications he is 
charged with making and causing to be made, presenting and causing to be 
presented, certain false, fictitious, and fraudulent accounts, vouchers, and claims 
to the Auditor for the State and Other Departments and to the Treasurer of 
the United States for approval and payment, for alleged salary due, when he 
was absent from his post of duty in China half the time since his appointment 
without leave granted, spending this time in Europe, Japan, and America; for 
alleged hotel expenses and other alleged expenses on circuit while staying in 
Hongkong, a British colony, where he had no jurisdiction, and for rent of a 
building in Shanghai for the United States Court for China, said false and 
fictitious vouchers aggregating over $16,000 lawful money of the United States. 

The fifth specification charges a denial of a writ of habeas corpus in behalf 
of a young woman, a citizen of the United States, who had been arrested at 
the instigation of a procuress by a conspiracy, on an alleged charge of owing 
a tailor’s bill, with a view to preventing said young woman leaving China and 
a life of shame, she having bought a ticket from Shanghai to her home in 
San Francisco. 

While holding that the United States consular court was within its juris¬ 
diction to order the arrest of said young woman on this charge of owing a 
tailor’s bill and about to leave China without paying same, the said Thayer 
in other cases set forth in detail in said fifth specification holds that a judg¬ 
ment debtor against whom execution has been sought in vain in satisfaction 
of said judgment may leave the jurisdiction of the court to avoid payment of 
said judgment, and that he is not subject to arrest as was the said young 
woman. Facts are stated tending to show bribery in support of his decision 
allowing judgment debtors to leave his jurisdiction. 

The sixth specification charges that said Thayer refused to permit charges 
of perjury and making of false accounts to be filed against an ex-acting 
marshal of said United States Court for China, and threatened to disbar an 
attorney for seeking to file same. Other instances of gross abuse of power are 
set forth where he protected officers of that court where actions were sought 
against them, and where the said Thayer used his said high office to harass 
and persecute those whom he thought opposed to his high-handed actions. 

The seventh specification charges gross abuse of power and the usurpation 
of the powers of a jury in the trial of Frederick C. Faulkner, a former clerk 
of the United States legation at Peking, charged with embezzlement. Faulkner 
was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. A writ of error was filed in his 
behalf, his appeal was perfected, and a stay of execution of sentence was 
prayed for. After sentence at Tientsin Faulkner was sent to Shanghai, where 
he was not permitted to see his counsel, and later sent to serve five years in 
the Federal penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Ivans. The complainant in this 
case was one Henry Fletcher, then secretary of the said legation. He and 
Faulkner had been sergeants during the Spanish-American War, Fletcher in the 
Rough Riders in Cuba and Faulkner in the Marine Corps. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


45 


Faulkner fouglit his way with the Marine Corps in the allied army from 
Tientsin to Peking to the relief of the besieged legations during the Boxer 
uprising in China Fletcher was made secretary and Faulkner clerk of the 
legation. Fletcher, who hailed from Pennsylvania, held himself socially su¬ 
perior to Faulkner, who hailed from Kentucky. Fletcher opposed Faulkner 
becoming a member in the Peking Club and otherwise sought to ostracize him 
socially. Ill will existed between the men, which finally resulted in Fletcher 
charging Faulkner with embezzlement. 

During the trial of the case, a jury being denied Faulkner by said Thayer, 
the said Fletcher and Thayer were constantly in each other’s society, even to 
walking to and from the trial together. 

In a word, said Thayer prejudged the case before its trial, and then forced 
Faulkner to trial without a jury, the said Thayer acting as judge of the facts 
as well as of the law. 

In a letter to the Auditor for the State and Other Departments, dated Shang¬ 
hai, October 15, 1910, the said Thayer, in justifying the expenditure of extra 
funds for an additional marshal, made this statement: He, the said Faulkner, 
was “ thought to be somewhat desperate. He had borne himself in an ugly 
manner during the trial.” Said statement was absolutely false. On the con¬ 
trary, the said Faulkner had conducted himself in a most gentlemanly manner. 
Not only this, he was in Singapore, a British colony, outside the jurisdiction of 
the United States Court for China, on a vacation when he heard that a warrant 
had been issued for his arrest. Notwithstanding this, and notwithstanding he 
could not have been extradited and brought back to China, he voluntarily re¬ 
turned to Peking, feeling confident that he could establish his innocence and 
that he would have a fair trial. 

In striking contrast to the Faulkner trial and sentence to five years in the 
Federal penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth is the case of George Collinwood. 
Collinwood was the manager of a book store and publishing house in Tientsin. 
He confessed to embezzling an amount about equal to that charged against 
said Faulkner. He agreed to save said Thayer a trip from Shanghai to Tientsin 
to try his case or to take the plea of guilty as charged. Thayer was anxious 
to leave Shanghai for Europe on a six months’ trip with pay and without 
leave, and it was agreed that by pleading guilty in Shanghai and not in 
Tientsin he w’ould only be sentenced to three months in the consular jail at 
Shanghai. This Collinwood did, and he was only sentenced to serve three 
months in said consular jail. 

The eighth specification charges that said Thayer indorsed one Frank E. 
Hinckley to the Secretary of State for the position of United States district 
attorney of the said court as a well-equipped lawyer, whereas in truth and in 
fact, as the said Thayer well knew, the said Hinckley was not even a lawyer 
and had never been admitted to practice before any Federal or State court. 

It further charges that said Thayer himself is incompetent to hold the high 
office of judge of the United States Court for China. Citing in support of this, 
evidence is adduced to show that said Thayer is an ex-clerk of the Treasury 
Department, where he was employed for more than 15 years as clerk, having 
studied law at night school in Washington the first two years of his said clerk¬ 
ship the only preparation he had for admission to practice law. 

The ninth charge is that of grossly usurping a probate jurisdiction of estates 
of citizens dying in China, whereby many thousands of dollars are being di¬ 
verted from the lawful channels of descent, graft perpetrated upon estates, the 
laws of the United States violated, even the act of Congress creating said court. 

In violation of section 3617, Revised Statutes, the said court officials deduct 
a perquisite on all assets collected of the estates of citizens dying intestate in 
China as well as from fines, etc., and make no return thereof, or of the in¬ 
ventories of said estates, nor the names of estates, only giving docket numbers. 

George F. Curtis. 

September 17, 1913. 

Mr. Curtis. I have necessarily left out a lot of important facts 
in this summary, because it was impossible to embrace them in a form 
to be understood by the committee unless I went into the surround¬ 
ing facts and circumstances. Certain judgments have been rendered 
in that court that the judge has not had the marshal to execute, and 
there are cases where judgment debtors have been permitted to leave 


46 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


the jurisdiction of the court where equitable proceedings had been 
instituted to detain them. There are cases Avhere equitable proceed¬ 
ings were instituted, where all legal remedies had been exhausted, 
to hold the person and property of judgment debtors within the 
jurisdiction of the court, but in such cases Judge Thayer has per¬ 
mitted the defendants to leave the jurisdiction of the court, refusing 
to issue writs of ne exeat. The action of the court was quite differ¬ 
ent in the case of a young woman who was being held there in a 
house of prostitution. When she was about to leave the old trick 
of proceeding against her on an alleged unpaid tailor’s bill was re¬ 
sorted to. The consular court issued a warrant for her arrest upon 
the charge that she was about to leave China without paying this 
tailor’s bill. In that case Judge Thayer refused to grant a writ of 
habeas corpus. There was evidence to show that the woman’s pro¬ 
curess was in conspiracy with Mr. Hadley and others to keep this 
girl locked up. She was to have sailed for San Francisco on the same 
day that the warrant for her arrest was issued. Of course I can 
not refer in full detail to that case here in this summary. As I have 
stated, there were a number of other cases in which judgment debt¬ 
ors were permitted to leave the jurisdiction of the court—cases in 
which the judge refused to allow the issue of writs of ne exeat. 

(Thereupon, at 12.12 o’clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 
Friday, September 19, 1913, at 10.30 o’clock a. m.) 


Committee on Expenditures in 

The Department of Justice, 

House of Representatives, 

Friday , September 19 , 1913. 

The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. Robert F. Broussard 
(chairman) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE F. CURTIS—Continued. 

The Chairman. Inasmuch as we have gone pretty thoroughly into 
the cross-examination of Mr. Curtis upon five of the specifications, I 
suggest that we might take the sixth specification, which is on page 3 
of this document, and if any of you gentlemen desire to ask any 
questions with regard to it we might proceed to question him upon 
this specification. We have gone over the other five specifications 
pretty thoroughly. 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit to the stenog¬ 
rapher a summary of the rents paid for these five buildings, and 
I would like to call the attention of the committee, which I did 
not do at the last meeting, to the fact that the contract for these 
five buildings is made out in such a way as to cover up the tracks 
of the parties to this contract in that not a single building is given 
separately, but the whole thing is jumbled together as one transaction. 
This statement gives the thing in detail. 

The Chairman. Would you like to have it read? 

Mr. Ferguson. I think it would be well to have it read. 

(The statement referred to is as follows:) 


House No. 16 Whangpoo Road (post office) part unlawfully 
used for residential purposes: 

Actual rent, $45 per month, 12 months- $540 

Yearly amount actually paid_-:-:- $600 

House No. 15 Wangpoo Road (jail) : 

Actual rent, $45 per month, 12 months- 540 

Yearly amount actually paid- 1, 200 

House No. 12 Wangpoo Road (United States court), part un¬ 
lawfully used for residential purposes: 

Actual rent, $120 per month, 12 months- s — - 1,440 

Yearly amount actually paid- 2,400 

House No. 13 Whangpoo Road (consulate), part unlawfully 
used for residential purposes: 

Actual rent, $35 per month, 12 months- 420 

Yearly amount actually paid— ----- 420 

House No. 14 Wangpoo Road (consulate), part unlawfully 
used for residential purposes: 

Actual rent, $35 per month, 12 months- 420 

Yearly amount actually paid--- 420 


Actual yearly rent- 
Yearly amount paid 

Actual yearly rent overpaid. 


3, 360 

5,040 


47 

















48 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


House No. 16 Whangpoo Road, difference overpaid $5 per month (not in¬ 
cluding rent of basement of No. 15 Whangpoo Road, which basement 

was included with the occupation of No. 16 Whangpoo Road)_ $60 

House No. 15 Whangpoo Road, difference overpaid $55 per month. 12 
months (including only the second and third floors and attic of No. 15)_ 660 

House No. 12 Whangpoo Road, difference overpaid $80 per month, 12 

months _ 960 


Total amount overpaid yearly by the Government since August 
1, 1911_____1,680 


As seen above, Nos. 13 and 14 Wangpoo Road were used as the 
consulate buildings, the rent of these two buildings being $840, or 
$420 each, yearly. As the consulate general was entitled to expend 
$1,600 yearly for consular offices, this amount being 20 per cent of his 
salary, had he spent the full amount instead of the $840, there re¬ 
mains the sum of $920 unaccounted for yearly, in actual rental value. 
(See Rev. Stats., 1706.) 

Mr. Curtis. I would respectfully submit that officers out there 
have put this on record in writing, that Nos. 13 and 14 Whangpoo 
Road rent for $420 each; and they are bound by their own figures, 
and can not get out of that. 

The basement of No. 15 Whangpoo Road is used by the postal 
agent. The postal agent uses the basements of two of the houses— 
Nos. 15 and 16—for post-office purposes, and the upper part of the 
house, No. 16 Whangpoo Road—that is, the second and third floors 
and attic—for residential purposes, whereas his quarterly returns 
under oath show that it is used exclusively for post-office business. 

The Chairman. Is that an American post office? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. It is rented from Mr. Wilder, who rents 
these other buildings. 

The Chairman. I wanted to inquire whether this is a post office 
belonging to the United States Government? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And there is an official of the Government of 
the United States in charge of it? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Bailey. He is called a postal agent? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. The whole building, No. 15 Whangpoo 
Road, would be worth $540 a year, yet the Government pays $1,200 
a year for the second, third floors, and the attic for use as a jail. 

Mr. Fergusson. Who gets the difference? You say the Govern¬ 
ment pays a certain amount of rent in excess of what it should pay. 
I want to know who gets the rakeoff. 

Mr. Curtis. That is hard to say. 

Mr. Fergusson. Well, we should have something specific about 
that. 

Mr. Curtis. I can show that the money is paid to Mr. Wilder, and 
I can show what he has to pay for the five buildings. I can show 
that the law only allows him to expend for rent an amount equal 
to 20 per cent of his salary, and that amount is $1,600. The differ¬ 
ence between the actual rent, or the amount that should be paid 
and the amount paid, is $1,680. Over and above this amount, he 
has already drawn $840—— 







CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


49 


Mr. Fergusson (interposing). Who, Mr. Wilder? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. He has already drawn $840 for the con¬ 
sulate, and that would leave a balance of $920 over and above the 
actual rent. I do not know what becomes of that. 

Mr. Cramton. As I understand it, you have an impression that 
the buildings which Mr. Thayer makes use of pay an unreasonably 
high rent in order that the buildings used by some other officials may 
pay an unreasonably low rental. 

Mr. Curtis. That is true in part, but inasmuch as Mr. Wilder has 
put himself on record as to Nos. 13 and 14 Whangpoo Road—that is, 
on record that they are each worth $35 per month, and the other 
two houses, at Nos. 15 and 10 Whangpoo Road, being precisely like 
the houses at Nos. 13 and 14 Whangpoo Road, he must have knowl¬ 
edge of this difference. He rents them at $1,200 and $000 each 
yearly, the difference being as you will see. The actual rental of 
No. 12 Whangpoo Road is $120, or 200 taels per month. That true 
rental value is shown by the municipal tax receipts. Judge Thayer 
has knowledge of these facts and he is estopped from denying them. 
Judge Thayer is estopped from denying the facts regarding the 
rental of his own court building, because the tax receipts show on 
the face of them that the rent of that building is 200 taels per month. 

Mr. F ergusson. What I want you to do, in a nutshell, is this: We 
are investigating the judge here, and possibly the marshal, and I 
would like to have you show me specifically how much rakeoff the 
judge or any other people got, if any, and also how much direct 
knowledge the judge had of the transactions. 

Mr. Curtis. This statement shows a difference of nine hundred 
and some odd dollars; I do not know who got it. I am simply going 
to bare the facts to the committee; that is, that the judge, through his 
financial officer, sent to Washington a contract agreeing to pay $200 
per month for a building the actual rent of which, as shown by the 
municipal tax receipts, was 200 taels per month, or $120 in gold per 
month. 

Mr. Fergusson. Making a difference of $80 per month, or a rakeoff 
of $80 per month ? 

Mi*. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Fergusson. But you do not pretend to say who got it ? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir. 

Mr. Cramton. As I understand the situation, down the road a 
little ways is a building rented by the Government from the same 
parties for other purposes for which a rental of about $45 per month 
is paid? 

Mr. Curtis. $35; there are two buildings rented at $35 each. 

Mr. Cramton. Buildings that are identical in every respect with 
the one for which the Government pays a rental of $200 per month? 

Mr. Curtis. They are identical with the buildings for which the 
Government pays a rental of $100 per month for a part of one build¬ 
ing, No. 15 Whangpoo Road, for a jail, and they are identical with 
the one for which the Government pays a rental of $600 a year for 
a postal agency, at No. 16 Whangpoo Road; but they are not like 
the court building; the court building stands alone; it was at one 
time used as the old Russian consulate. 

Before going on with these specifications I want to make a state¬ 
ment to the committee in order to place myself in a proper light. 

9997—13-4 



50 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


I want to say that I came on here from Shanghai to present these 
charges. I want to say to the committee that I told Mr. Thayer 
when I saw him in Kobe in July that he should not be there; that it 
was against his interests to be there and that it was against the law. 
I told him that his place was down in Shanghai. Now, we had no 
rules of court there. Mr. Wilfley made some rules of court, but they 
were entirely inadequate. I called his attention to these facts, but 
he simply flew into a rage with me. I came on here once before this 
to bring some charges against Mr. Goodnow, the consul general, who 
at that time had the same jurisdiction that Mr. Thayer now has. 
After a great deal of trouble and much expense coming to Wash¬ 
ington I managed to induce Representative Hughes and Representa¬ 
tive Williams to go into the case. I do not mean to say that I had 
any trouble in inducing them to go into it, but I had trouble in pre¬ 
senting my case. Senator Hughes, then a Representative, went with 
me personally to see President Roosevelt, and as a result of my 
efforts in that matter Mr. Goodnow was ordered on here. Senator 
Hughes introduced a resolution of impeachment against Mr. Good¬ 
now, and here are the charges. The New York Sun. an independent 
non-partisan paper, showed the condition of affairs at that time. 
Representative Williams- 

The Chairman (interposing). That does not pertain to the charges 
you now make. 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir; but I want to explain my position here. 
Then Representative Williams introduced a resolution in the House 
calling for these charges, and they were printed. These charges were 
printed and are known as House Document No. 665, Fifty-ninth 
Congress, first session. 

The Chairman. That has nothing to do with this. 

Mr. Curtis. What I am saying leads up to this case. Many of 
these charges had been filed against Mr. Goodnow before I came 
on. Mr. Hughes’s action and Mr. Williams’s action in that case led 
up to the reorganization of the consular service; but I am sorry to 
say that since the reorganization of the consular service, so far as 
charges being brought against consular officials are concerned, the 
same conditions exist—that is, they are not acted on promptly, or 
they are acquitted of the charges brought against them- 

The Chairman (interposing). That has no connection with this 
matter, and we do not want to cumber the record. 

Mr. Curtis. I want to read a letter I received from Consul General 
McNally. 

The Chairman. I do not understand that that has any connection 
with this matter. 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir; but I want to show that this Goodnow case 
made a me a great many enemies. There is a consul named McNally, 
who used to be at Nanking. He was charged three years ago with 
embezzling $10,000. I understand that the charges have been exam¬ 
ined by the Department of State, and inasmuch as he was promoted 
and sent to a better station, at Tsingtao, which is a German port on 
the northern coast of China- 

The Chairman (interposing). But what connection does that have 
with this matter? 



CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


51 


Mr. Curtis. ISow it turns up that he is charged here in the District 
supreme Court, and he tells me that the charges are still open 
against him; and he writes me this letter- 

Ihe Chairman (interposing). I know; but that is not being in¬ 
quired into here. ’ 

Mr. Curtis. Charges are made against him, and charges have been 
made against me; I was charged with being an opium fiend. When 
the Goodnow case- 

The Chairman (interposing). But we are not investigating you 
at all. What we want are the facets pertaining to the officials of that 
court. If there has been any misconduct on the part of the officials 
of that court which reflects upon the Government, or which is dis¬ 
paraging to American interests, we want to know the facts. 

Mr. Curtis. The committee wishes to take up that charge? 

The Chairman. The sixth charge. Does any member of the com¬ 
mittee wish to ask any questions in regard to the sixth charge? 

Mr. Curtis. May I call attention to one thing, and that is that Mr. 
McNally volunteers in this letter to come down here and be a wit¬ 
ness before this committee as to judicial affairs out there. I will 
ask the committee to read the letter. He volunteers to come down 
here and give evidence. You will notice that this letter is written 
on consular paper. 

(The letter referred to is as follows:) 

(Care M. King, Bealston, Va.) 

Sunday, Sept. 7. 

Dear Curtis : Tbe day after meeting you I had to come here, as my nerves 
are shot to pieces from my heart trouble, contracted in China. Would you 
kindly call on Hamilton, Yerkes, and Hamilton, lawyers, Union Trust Building, 
and see Mr. Brady there, who has my matter in charge. Do give him all in¬ 
formation on Chinese evidence and the squeeze—China. I am preparing a 
reply to the charges against me, based on Chinese evidence, the credibility of 
which you will understand. Do this for me as a great favor, for my reputation 
is at stake, and I will be always obliged to you. 

Am enclosing a card of introduction to Mr. Brady. 

I will see you as soon as I return and corroborate your statement on Chinese 
judicial matters. 

Sincerely, J. C. McNally. 

Mr. Bailey. On what ground did Judge Thayer refuse to permit 
the charges of perjury to be made? 

Mr. Curtis. Against Darrah? 

Mr. Fergusson. Was he the ex-acting marshal? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. He said that it reflected upon his court, and 
that he would not permit it. 

Mr. Bailey. Did he refuse upon the ground that it reflected upon 
his court? 

Mr. Curtis. There is the charge sworn to [indicating!- 

Mr. Wilfley arrived in Shanghai with the avowed intention of 
cleaning up the town- 

Mr. Fergusson (interposing). That was prior to Judge Thayers 
arrival ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; but this leads up to the case. There was a 
Mr. Price out there who was a graduate of the University of Mis¬ 
souri, as I undertsand it, and who was a graduate in law, but whose 
business was that of running a big road house. They were after 
Mr. Price and Mr. Wilfley held that we were not entitled to a jury 





52 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


trial out there. Mr. Price was arrested on the alleged charge of 
drawing a deadly weapon, and was convicted of that offense on 
Chinese testimony, the Chinese afterwards admitting in open 
court—the “ mixed court ”—that he had been induced to swear falsely 
against Price. He had lots of money, and had the case appealed to 
the circuit court of appeals, and was finally acquitted. Now, 
during that trial there was a lot of money spent. I had nothing to 
do with the case. Mr. Laura, who is an Italian subject, was called 
into the case in some capacity, as an interpreter or witness in the 
case, and the transcript of the record and the account of the fees of 
the court and the marshal’s fees showed that Mr. Laura, who was a 
prominent business man out there, had received a certain amount of 
money from the Government for interpreter’s fees and other fees, 
and he denied it. This account is sworn to by this man Darrah, and 
he (Mr. Laura) brought charges against this man Darrah for mak¬ 
ing false returns, charging him with perjury in swearing that he 
had paid him (Mr. Laura) this money. Hinckley was then clerk 
of the court and made up the account. The receipts were produced 
but the case was not permitted to go to trial, and the complaint was 
returned to me by the clerk of the court with a letter of transmittal. 
The next day, I presented another complaint, but on its presenta¬ 
tion I was threatened with contempt of court proceedings, and. as I 
did not want to be in contempt of court a second time, I withdrew 
that case. Later on, as I was informed by Mr. Musso, an attorney, 
that there was the case of a woman who had been assaulted by the 
district attorney, a man named Bassett, and she sought to prefer 
charges of assault against him. That charge was also thrown out of 
court, and Mr. Bassett was afterwards permitted- 

Mr. Fergussox (interposing). Does that come under the sixth 
specification? 

Mr. Curtis. It would come under specification No. 5 here. 

The Chairman. I want to ask a question right here: You .said that 
you were threatened with contempt proceedings. Do you mean to say 
that when you presented a petition for a client in a court where you 
were allowed to practice, you were threatened with contempt pro¬ 
ceedings? 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Thayer, the judge flew into a rage because pro¬ 
ceedings were sought to be brought against officials of his court. I 
might say that conditions in China are absolutely incredible. There 
is no case in the whole jurisprudence of the whole United States 
where a man has usurped the powers that Mr. Thayer and Mr. Wilfley 
usurped in China. They assumed that they had the absolute power 
to try charges against any man without a jury, notwithstanding the 
fact that under the law we are entitled to trial by jury there. People 
come up to him while trials are in progress and talk with him in 
private and prejudice him against people and their cases, and he pre¬ 
judges their cases without a jury. That is something unparalleled 
in the history of our Government. 

Mr. Bailey. Does the law which created that court provide for 
jury trials? 

Mr. Curtis. No more than the law which creates the United States 
district court. The Constitution and laws of the United States pro¬ 
vide for a trial by jury, and the laws of the United States are made 



CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


53 


applicable out there. Before this court was created they were en¬ 
titled to three assessors in the consular court, and if they did not 
agree we had an appeal. There is a section in the act creating the 
court which provides that the laws of the United States shall be in 
force in that jurisdiction, and, of course, under that we would be 
entitled to jury trial. Notwithstanding that, there are men now in 
the penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, serving long terms, who were 
tried and convicted without a jury. 

Mr. Bailey. Has the right of trial by jury been specifically denied 
by this court ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; and there is a man in the penitentiary at 
Fort Leavenworth now who was convicted without a jury trial. The 
most serious charge that I have to make here in relation to the 
court- 

The Chairman (interposing). Let us take this matter up in order. 
Have you come to the seventh charge now? 

Mr. Curtis. I have the case here- 

Air. Fergussox (interposing). You are on the fifth specification 
now, are you not? 

Air. Curtis. According to mv paper, it is the fifth charge. 

Air. Cra mton. Are you proceeding according to this document ? 

Air. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. We were dealing with the sixth charge and you 
say you are discussing the fifth charge. 

All*. Curtis. In 1905- 

The Chairman (interposing). AVait a minute; let us understand 
one another. You furnished this document and we ought to be deal¬ 
ing with the same subject matter, because the specifications are 
enumerated. 

Air. Curtis. I would like to take up the charge on page 2. which 
relates to the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. 

The Chairman. Did you not deal with that the other day? 

Air. Curtis. No, sir; I think not. 

All*. Bailey. I thought he had gone fully into that. 

Air. Curtis. I do not think it lias gone into the record. The fifth 
specification relates to the denial of a writ of habeas corpus in behalf 
of a young woman, and then we come to a discussion of the charge 
that he permitted judgment creditors to leave the jurisdiction of the 
court. 

The Chairman. I wish you would use the synopsis you gave us. so 
that we will know what we are talking about. If you will now take 
up the seventh specification and tell us what that is about, we will 
proceed with that. 

All*. Tavenxer. I would like to ask him some questions relative to 
the sixth specification. Air. Curtis, you said that the court refused to 
accept your charges against the ex-acting marshal: in what form were 
the charges presented—were they written out? 

Air. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

All*. Tavenxer. AAlien you submitted the charges, what did he do? 

All*. Curtis. I did not take the charges to him; I took them to the 
clerk, and the clerk said he would have to see the judge about it. 
So he went into the judge's chamber and I went with him. The 
judge flew into a rage, and later on the clerk wrote me this letter 




54 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[exhibiting it]. So I made out another charge, but when I saw that 
they were determined to place me in a light that would discredit 
both me and my client- 

Mr. Tavenner (interposing). What I want to know is this: Did 
you leave this paper with the court? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; with the clerk. Then the clerk returned it 
to me by mail, and then I filed another one. As I said, I filed another 
one, but the judge was still angry and threatening. The district 
attorney said, “ We will go ahead with it.” He had Mr. Laura 
there- 

Mr. Tavenner (interposing). What I am trying to find out is this: 
When you filed that second charge, did that second charge stay with 
the court ? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir; while I was talking with the judge in his 
chamber the adjoining room was occupied by this so-called district 
attorney. I say “ so-called ” district attorney, because he had never 
been admitted to practice in any of the State or Federal courts here. 
This so-called district attorney was in the room talking with Mr. 
Laura and Mr. Mussa. While I was talking to Mr. Thayer, I found 
that Mr. Laura had signed this thing, and I saw from the attitude 
of the district attorney that he was dead set against Mr. Laura and 
Mr. Musso, and that he would do everything he could to discredit 
these men. Seeing that, when the papers were handed over to me 
to sign I put them in my pocket. Then the district attorney jumped 
at me and took me by the hand, and I said, “ If you do not take your 
hands off me I will defend myself.” Then I walked out of the office. 

Mr. Tavenner. You say in this specification that, “ Said Thayer 
refused to permit charges of perjury and making of false accounts to 
be filed against an ex-acting marshal of said United States Court for 
China, and threatened to disbar an attorney for seeking to file same.” 
It would appear from your statement that you put these charges in 
your pocket. 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; the second time. 

Mr. Tavenner. He did not refuse to permit you to file the charges, 
then, but he only- 

Mr. Curtis (interposing). It was not the judge; it was the dis¬ 
trict attorney. The judge said he would not permit his court to be 
prostituted by such cases or have the officers of his court discredited. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did he say that he would refuse to receive these 
charges ? 

Mr. Curtis. That was the first one. When I went back the second 
time, I found that Mr. Laura had signed a certain thing, and that 
he wanted my signature; and I saw that the district attorney was 
dead against my client. 

Mr. Tavenner. So you did not want to file the charges when you 
thought there was a frame-up against you ? 

Mr. Curtis. If you consider that you are 7,000 miles from the 
appellate court, with no jury and a hostile judge- 

Mr. Fergusson (interposing). You did not file the charges the 
second time? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir; I put them in my pocket. 

Mr. Tavenner. The only reason I have for asking that question is 
that you make this specific charge, “That Judge Thayer refused to 




CHARGES AGAINST RUEUS H. THAYER. 55 

permit charges of perjury and making of false accounts to be filed 
against an ex-acting marshal.” 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; he fell into a rage, and when the charges 
were presented the second time I sa w that they were dead set against 
me and my client and I did not intend to run any risk. 

Mr. Fergusson. You did not file the charges the second time? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir; I handed them back. 

Mr. Fergusson. They were filed, then? 

Mr. Curtis. I can not say that because I do not know. 

Mr. Fergusson. Well, say one thing or the other. 

Mr. Curtis. You see after my client handed them back to me in 
the presence of the district attorney I put them in my pocket and 
the district attorney wanted to get hold of them. 

Mr. Fergusson. They had not been filed then? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir; in the next day or so I saw the judge. 

Mr. Fergusson. Did you file them then? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir. 

Mr. Fergusson. Did the judge take them? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Fergusson. What became of them? 

Mr. Curtis. I do not know what became of them. 

The Chairman. What resulted from it? 

Mr. Curtis. Nothing. 

Mr. Cramton. Do I understand from your statement in regard to 
these charges that you thought there was or might be a possibility of 
your landing in the Fort Leavenworth Penitentiary? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir. 

Mr. Cramton, That is, were you afraid that their abuse of power 
would go to such an extent that you thought you had better with¬ 
draw the papers than take the chances? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir. How could I be responsible in a case of that 
kind? 

Mr. Fergusson. We are not asking that, but what are the facts? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir. A client comes to me and pays me to repre¬ 
sent him, and I represent him. 

Mr. Cramton. You may have misunderstood my question. I was 
not intimating that you had done anything that would take you 
there, but I asked you whether your fear of the abuse of power by 
the court was such that you thought it best to withdraw such com¬ 
plaints as you wanted to file? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir. The situation was this—— 

Mr. Cramton (interposing). I do not think it is necessary. 

Mr. Curtis (interposing). I might explain that: We make our 
livelihood out there not by practicing in the United States Court. 
There is very little business in that court, not over 12 cases in a 
year, and they are cases mostly like this and vagrancy cases. We 
make our living by practicing in the courts of Great Britain, 
France, Russia, and other nations out there. We practice in those 
other foreign courts by virtue of our membership in the United 
States Court for China, and if an attorney is suspended from prac¬ 
tice in the United States Court for China on contempt proceedings, 
he can not practice in the other foreign courts. Now, there we are 
10,000 miles from home and 7,000 miles from the apellate court. 
Do I make myself understood? 



56 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


Mr. Cramton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. That was done in a case where I had filed a petition 
for a rehearing of a case. It was the first case I brought before Mr. 
Thayer, and he fined me $25 in gold or 10 days in prison for con¬ 
tempt of court, although the statutes relating to contempt of court 
limit the imprisonment to not exceeding 24 hours. I had to pay the 
$25. In addition to that, I had to apologize to the court. In the 
meantime. I had a case pending in the Portuguese consulate court 
involving over 18,000 taels, and I was not permitted to go into that 
case. It is a sad state of affairs in China: You may imagine your¬ 
self 10,000 miles from home- 

Mr. Bailey (interposing). Is there a good deal of personal feel 
ing between you and the judge? 

Mr. Curtis. There was. When I had been a member of the con¬ 
sular court since 1902, the jurisdiction of which court was succeeded 
to by the United States Court for China, when I had practiced law 
in the United States Supreme Court, in the United States Circuit 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at San Francisco, State of 
California, and, in fact, had just returned to the Orient from arguing 
an appealed case which I had taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals— 
the Cunningham will case—I stopped at Kobe on my way to Shang¬ 
hai, about the 1st of July, 1909, where I met Judge Thayer, who told 
me that it would be necessary for me to take an examination in the 
various branches of the law before I would be permitted to practice 
before his court. I told him that I did not wish to antagonize his 
court and that I would take the examination, and he assured me that 
he would write the clerk of the court to give me the examination 
papers so that the examination could be given me in Shanghai. 
I at once continued my journey to Shanghai on the steamship Siberia , 
of the Pacific Mail Steamship Co.’s Line, and arrived at Shanghai 
on the 4th of July. I saw the then clerk of the court, Mr. Hinckley, 
who declined to give me the examination papers or to make any ar¬ 
rangement for my examination to practice before the United States 
Court for China unless I first petitioned him in writing for leave to 
take the examination, and he stated he would then use his discretion 
as to whether I could take the examination or not. I had incurred 
Mr. Hinckley’s enmity under Judge Wilfley’s administration of the 
court when I tried the Cunningham will case before the United 
States Court for China, by special leave of that court. I declined 
to put myself in a position to be humiliated by Mr. Hinckley’s refus¬ 
ing to make any arrangement for the examination, and I returned 
to Kobe, Japan, to see Judge Thayer, and I informed him of the 
transaction and showed the absurdity of requiring me to take an 
examination after I had practiced for years before the court to the 
jurisdiction of which he had succeeded. Judge Thayer then gave me 
the examination in Kobe. 

The Chairman. Is there any gentleman who would like to ask any 
questions in reference to the seventh specification? 

Mr. Fergusson. As I understand the seventh specification, the 
gravamen of your charge is that he sent him to the penitentiary 
without the intervention of a jury. Do you specifically charge that 
as a fact? 

Mr. Curtis. Do you mean the Faulkner case? 



CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


57 


Mr. Fergusson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. \ es, sir. 1 was not permitted to see my client. 
Alter perfecting my appeal I asked for a stay of execution, as my 
client was about to be sent off to Fort Leavenworth and had tele¬ 
graphed me to come down. I could not see him after I reached 
Shanghai until 20 minutes before he boarded the steamer. 

Mr. Cramton. Is he in Fort Leavenworth now? 

Mr. Curtis. I presume so. For some reason or other, I received 
a letter from San Francisco notifying me that my power of attorney 
had been canceled, and so I could not proceed with my appeal. 

I might say in that same connection that there was a man- 

Mr. Fergusson. That is a part of the specification? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes,, sir. 

Mr. Fergusson. We are through with Faulkner. You charge 
specifically that Faulkner was sent to Fort Leavenworth for five 
years. He is serving the term? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. sir: I presume so. 

Mr. Fergusson. Now, coming to the Collinwood case in the sixth 
specification, state distinctly what he did to Collinwood. 

Mr. Curtis. I had nothing whatever to do with Collinwood as his 
attorney. I met Collinwood in Tientsin; I met him there while I 
was on the Faulkner case. 

Mr. Fergusson. Collinwood confessed embezzlement? 

Mr. Curtis. He got 90 days in Shanghai. 

Mr. Fergusson. In the penitentiary at Shanghai? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; the consular jail. Collinwood was up in 
Tientsin, and the judge was going to Europe, to leave Shanghai. 
It would have necessitated a trip on the part of the judge to hold 
court at Tientsin, and so Collinwood was brought down to Shang¬ 
hai and pleaded guilty, and received a sentence of 90 days and was 
sent to the consular jail. 

Mr. Fergusson. The eighth specification is about a man named 
Hinckley, and the eighth specification charges that “ said Thayer in¬ 
dorsed one Frank E. Hinckley to the Secretary of State for the posi¬ 
tion of United States district attorney of the said court, as a well- 
equipped lawyer, whereas in truth and in fact, as the said Thayer 
well knew, the said Hinckley was not even a lawyer, and had never 
been admitted to practice before anv Federal or State court.” The 
substance of that is that this man claimed he was a lawyer when he 
was not? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; and more than that, Hinckley, the financial 
officer of the court, had forwarded these vouchers for salaries and 
office rent to Washington. 

Mr. Fergusson. Had forged? 

Mr. Curtis. Had forwarded them to Washington, and that Hinck¬ 
ley knew the expenses at Hongkong, and it was his duty to either 
warn Thayer or tell him that it was not right; in other words, they 
w r ere working together. 

The Chairman. Hinckley is not a lawyer at all ? 

Mr. Curtis. He is not a lawyer and has never been admitted to 
practice. He had been minister a little while ago in Berkley. Cal., 
and married a woman, older than himself, with some little money, 
and he was appointed as clerk of the court out there. Judge Thayer 


58 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


indorsed him as an attorney and as being well equipped to practice 
before that court. 

The Chairman. Was Judge Thayer the only man who indorsed 
Mr. Hinckley, do you know ? 

Mr. Curtis. I do not know. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether he was appointed on Judge 
Thayer’s indorsement? 

Mr. Curtis. I saw Judge Thayer’s letter in the State Department 
indorsing him as being well equipped. He indorsed two other men 
at the same time. There were three applicants. 

The Chairman. He recommended three, and of the three the 
President selected Hinckley and appointed him? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Fergusson. Now, the ninth charge is more or less specifically 
stated here. 

The Chairman. We have gone over that at considerable length 
already. 

Mr. Curtis. I would like to call the attention of the committee 
to the case of Nee Chang Mow v. Andrews & George, which is 
reported in Mr. Peirce’s report on inspection of United States con¬ 
sulates in the Orient, document No. 665, Fifty-ninth Congress, first 
session, House of Representatives, page 399. I secured a judgment 
against the American firm of Andrews & George. 

Mr. Cramton. Was Judge Thayer connected with that case? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. After rendering his judgment—the judg¬ 
ment was on a suit over the sale of a lot of exploded cartridge shells 
in Mukden. The Russians got there in the Boxer trouble and blew 
up the arsenal. The Chinese merchants of Shanghai wanted to pur¬ 
chase the copper metal in order to make Chinese cash coin. My client 
agreed to pay 72,000 taels for a lot of these shells. They sent a lot 
of bullets, dirt, etc.; they were not shipped according to the contract, 
and we sued for the difference. The board of surveyors appointed 
found in our favor. The judge rendered a judgment, and after the 
judgment the marshal would not enforce the judgment, although I 
asked for a writ of execution. It was also brought out and ad¬ 
mitted in the trial that they withheld from my client 6,000 taels. 
They claimed that they were being sued by a Russian firm for this 
amount, but that was false. I went to Port Arthur and found no 
suit. Shortly thereafter the Japanese took Port Arthur, and there 
was no suit brought, can not be brought, and never will be brought, 
and the money is still in the hands of Andrews & George. While 
the marshal would not enforce this judgment, of course Andrews was 
perfectly safe. When we got a new court—the United States court 
for China—we thought that we would get the judgment enforced. In 
order to avoid that, they incorporated under the British laws—the 
Hongkong ordinances—which placed all their stock in trade under 
the British laws. They took in another man, B. von Fischerz, as 
the manager, and they went to Yokohama and conducted their busi¬ 
ness under the partnership of Andrews & George. I found Mr. An¬ 
drews was in Shanghai, passing through from the south, going to 
Yokohama, and I immediately drew up a bill in equity, asking for a 
writ of ne exeat, asking for an accounting of the money—the money 
still in his possession—asking for a discovery, but the court would 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


59 


not issue the writ, although the bill was drawn up according to law 
and verified, and the judgment against them was produced, sealed 
under the consular seal of the court that issued it. I have it here in 
my documents. Mr. Thayer would not issue that writ, and therefore 
Mr. Andrews could do just as he wished about it. They answered 
and admitted the judgment, but denied that we were entitled to- 

Mr. Fergusson (interposing). What did they answer? I thought 
you said that the judge would not allow you to file it? 

Mr. Curtis. I filed the case. Then I filed an amended bill, 
attaching interrogatories to my bill. By the way, the judge only 
gave me 24 hours in which to file an amended bill, when, under the 
equity practice of the United States, you can amend a bill as a mat¬ 
ter of course. Then they demurred to that. The demurrer was not 
verified, did not have attached to it the certificate of the consul that 
it was not filed for the purpose of delay, and that it was well founded 
in law as required by the equity rules of the Supreme Court then in 
force. The bill came up on demurrer, and Mr. Thayer dismissed this 
bill in equity, and that very night Mr. Andrews went aboard the 
Princess Alice , of the North German Lloyd, for Yokahoma, and my 
client, who had spent a great deal of money and secured this judg¬ 
ment, as set forth fully in this report of Mr. Peirce, could not get 
a cent. 

On the Bund, one of the streets of Shanghai, I met an employee 
of Andrews, as I have already set forth here, and he offered to bet 
me $5, saying: “ You will not get that money, although you have 
a judgment against Mr. Andrews; you can not get anything.” 

The Chairman. Was that before the case was decided? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; that was before the case was decided. I 
had worked for months on the case. Mr. Peirce examined it and 
made a report. I claim that Judge Thayer was supposed to know 
the elementary rules of equity, and he should have ruled with us. 
More than that, Mr. Goodnow, the consul general who rendered the 
judgment, had pocketed large sums of money paid into court by the 
defendants to the use of the plaintiffs, and my client had paid large 
and extortionate fees and did not care to throw away any more money. 
Even if he had taken an appeal, Mr. Andrews had gone to Japan, 
and what could the court do in the case of a man in Japan? It could 
not enforce a judgment in Japan, and we had no protection or other 
remedy whatever. 

The Chairman. I understand that we have gone over all these 
specifications now, and, in my opinion, we probably ought to refer 
this entire matter to the Judiciary Committee, because the charges 
made, involving the court itself and its conduct, are more matters 
of impeachment than for this committee to investigate, except the 
charges which pertain to the judge’s salary and the rent of the 
building. Those are really the only things which we have to do with. 
As to those two charges, 1 believe that it would be fair and proper 
that we should have the State Department, whichever bureau of the 
department has jurisdiction of these matters, to come and present 
their case and for us to get the facts from them. Of course the judge, 
the marshal, and the district attorney ought to be permitted to appear 
before this committee, meet these charges, and explain them if they 
can. As to the balance of these charges, I think we had better refer 



60 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


them to the Committee on the Judiciary for them to take such action 
as they may deem proper. We will have these hearings printed and 
transmit a copy of them to the chairman of the Judiciary Com¬ 
mittee, and he will do whatever he thinks should be done. It would 
require some time to get the judge here from Shanghai. 

Mr. Fergusson. Sufficient has been presented to the committee to 
justify us in taking some action. 

The Chairman. We must. 

What bureau, Mr. Curtis, has charge of the payment of these 
accounts in the State Department ? 

Mr. Curtis. I do not know how to answer that question, Mr. Chair¬ 
man. I have been up there, and they disavow, as far as the court is 
concerned, having anything to do with the court as to leaves. 

Mr. Bailey. They claim that that comes under the Department of 
Justice? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. Under the law the Department of Justice 
has jurisdiction. 

Mr. Fergusson. The auditor has all the accounts which he has ap¬ 
proved, so we can get the facts. 

The Chairman. We ought to be able to get the facts from the 
Auditor for the State and Other Departments. 

Mr. Curtis. I have here a voucher under the seal of the Secretary 
of the Treasury setting forth the expense account of Mr. Thayer 
as being necessary for actual expenses on the circuit to Canton signed 
by Mr. Thayer. The bill has been paid, although it was held up by 
the auditor, and I claim in point of law that Mr. Thayer, having sent 
that on as actual expenses, that this committee will take judicial no¬ 
tice of the laws and treaties of the United States saying that Mr. 
Thayer had only jurisdiction as judge in China, and had no duties 
to perform in Hongkong, and, therefore, he is estopped from alleg¬ 
ing that he had judicial- 

The Chairman (interposing). Of course, we are not going to de¬ 
cide that he is estopped from anything until we have heard him. 

Mr. Coldren. If the committee please, I have not heretofore asked 
to be heard in behalf of Judge Thayer, whom I stated in the begin¬ 
ning I had no authority to represent. He has no information as to 
these charges whatever, no knowledge of the matter. 

Mr. Cramton. You assume that he has not? 

Mr. Coldren. Yes, sir; so far as I know he has not. 

As I understand, the present views of the committee are that the 
only two charges that this committee feels like investigating are, 
first, the charge that Judge Thayer was not entitled to salary during 
the time that he was absent from his jurisdiction, and, second, the 
charge relating to some irregularity in connection with the rent of 
those buildings. 

The Chairman. And then the other charge, relating to his travel¬ 
ing expenses. 

Mr. Coldren. And the traveling expenses during the short period. 

Mr. Fergusson. Another one is assuming probate jurisdiction. 

The Chairman. And the charges made in reference to that. 

Mr. Coldren. As to the first of those charges, the question as to 
his right to receive salary when absent from his jurisdiction, it strikes 
me that is pure and simple a question of law which can be determined 
very readily from the statute referred to here—whether it has any 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


61 


reference to this United States court for China, whether that matter 
has been thoroughly investigated by the Department of Justice and 
others, and the views of this committee, of course, on the law itself, 
and this committee is in a position to determine whether that does con¬ 
stitute a charge worthy of investigation—the charge that he has 
received salary when he was absent from his jurisdiction. 

The Chairman. If you will permit me, as to the first charge to 
which you have referred, the situation seems to have arisen where 
the certificate or, rather, the voucher given by the judge showed that 
it came from the jurisdiction of his court when, as a matter of fact, 
he was not in that jurisdiction, and whether the department, under 
the law, would have permitted payment on that voucher for his sal¬ 
ary in the event the department had been apprised of that fact. 

Mr. Coldren. That practice is disclosed by the Department of 
State and that information can be obtained by calling the proper 
officers. 

Mr. Fergusson. The judge might want to be heard as to the fact 
of his absence? 

Mr. Coldren. Certainly. 

Mr. Fergusson. Unless he concedes that. 

Mr. Coldren. My point was, assuming the facts stated were true, 
the first question is whether it is a matter of law. Then, as to the 
second charge that Judge Thayer was responsible or in any way was 
benefited in the matter of the rental of buildings, as I have read all the 
evidence taken, some of it taken before I was here the first day, and 
have heard the evidence the other two days of the hearings, I fail 
to see wherein there is any charge that Judge Thayer has benefited in 
any way in connection with the rental of these buildings. 

Mr. Fergusson. There is this, I think, had he means of knowledge 
of what others were doing irregularly ? 

Mr. Curtis. The building was being used for residential purposes. 

Mr. Fergusson. And is there not the question of collusion between 
his subordinates? 

Mr. Cramton. Further there might be this, as to whether the 
funds of the Department of Justice have been improperly expended 
or squandered, with his consent. 

Mr. Fergusson. Or means of knowledge? 

Mr. Cramton. Even if he did not receive the money; if he per¬ 
mitted an exorbitant rate to be charged. 

Mr. Coldren. So far as that is concerned, it is my impression 
that the judge of the court had nothing to do with the financial 
matters of the court. That is my impression. The marshal and the 
clerk, I believe, are bonded officers, and the clerk, I believe, is respon¬ 
sible for the expenditures of the court. 

Mr. Fergusson. I have not examined the statute with reference 
to this court, but in my territory the judge has to certify to the 
accounts of the marshal, the jury, and everything else. 

Mr. Coldren. There is an act relating to the Territorial courts 
which is very specific, which I think has been held, after very careful 
consideration, not to apply to this court. 

I am satisfied it will be desirable, in behalf of Judge Thayer, to 
cross-examine the witness who has appeared. I do not know, but I 
do not believe the person who has appeared has been under oath, 
so that whatever statement he has made- 


62 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


Mr. Fergusson. I have thought of that once or twice, but the 
statement has been more exemplifying what he filed in writing than 
testimony proper. 

The Chairman. It has not been testimony; it has been a statement 
conveying certain charges to this committee. 

Mr. Fergusson. And furnishing data in support of the statement. 
It has not been so much testimony. 

Mr. Coedren. When it comes to the cross-examination the witness 
would certainly be under oath and be bound by his statement, so far 
as that is concerned. I do not feel in a position now to open up the 
defense of this case in behalf of Judge Thayer, without advice from 
him, certainly in such a way as to say that I could close the cross- 
examination of any witness who appeared, or to close the case in be¬ 
half of Judge Thayer on any of these points. I simply speak at all 
about them for the purpose of suggesting to the committee that it 
seems to me a very serious question as to whether or not on those 
points the committee felt like going further, any case had been made 
out—that is, any case other than might be settled by a complete and 
thorough examination of the law and from such information as they 
might secure from various sources as to the practice. 

Mr. Fergusson. My idea generally in reply to that suggestion is 
this, that this is not exactly a court now, but what we are doing is 
somewhat in the nature of a grand jury investigation to find out 
whether or not there is enough here to call for Judge Thayer. This 
is not a court. We have allowed this gentleman to come here and file 
certain documents and to explain them as he goes along as well as 
he could. This is not a court. 

Mr. Coldren. Of course, his documents alone, without his state¬ 
ment, mean nothing to this committee; they constitute no irregularity 
or no charges. 

Mr. Fergusson. Your contention would be proper in a court rather 
than here. We are groping in the dark and getting information as 
best we can. 

The Chairman. This committee is appraised of certain charges 
which affect the finances of this Government. We have not placed 
the person who makes these charges under oath, because we want to 
know what the charges are and whether there is sufficient evidence 
and documents to warrant an investigation of the facts alleged. Now, 
the committee has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient evi¬ 
dence to call the Auditor for the State and Other Departments to in¬ 
quire concerning the vouchers showing how the money has been dis¬ 
bursed, what the rules of the department are with regard to these 
vouchers, how they are passed upon, and by whom they are passed. 
That is all this committee has decided. If after hearing these state¬ 
ments the committee comes to the conclusion that the charges are 
sufficiently substantiated, in all fairness, of course the judge ought 
to be heard, either through counsel or personally, and time will be 
given him by this committee to come here and be heard. 

Mr. Coldren. I would suggest in addition to the Auditor for the 
State and Other Departments that the Chief of the Consular Service 
would be a proper witness. 

The Chairman. For what purpose? 

Mr. Coldren. To explain the relation of the Consular Service to 
this court. It seems that a large part of one of the charges here is 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


63 


that Mr. Wilder, who was in the Consular Service, rented certain 
buildings, and that there was irregularity in renting those buildings, 
but the evidence connecting Judge Thayer with that transaction is so 
vague that it fails to appeal to my mind as evidence thus far. 

Mr. Fergusson. But it is sufficient to my mind to call Judge 
Thayer to answer as to there being collusion of the officers and under¬ 
lings. 

Mr. Coldren. Before a United States judge is called to account, 
should there not be some evidence of collusion presented to war¬ 
rant it ? 

Mr. Cramton. Do you expect the Chief of the Consular Service to 
furnish such evidence? 

Mr. Coldren. Not necessarily, but the chief of that division is 
thoroughly familiar with the relations existing in the Consular Service. 
This court has always been held to be under the State Department in¬ 
stead of under the Department of Justice, and that has been held 
after very careful consideration of the law by the Attorney General 
and by others. That is the present practice. The State Department 
audits these accounts, and the auditor happens to be the same officer 
who handles the accounts of the State Department and the Depart¬ 
ment of Justice, but they are handled in the division which handles 
the accounts of the Department of State. 

Mr. Tavenner. What appropriation does this money come from, 
the appropriation for the State Department or the appropriation for 
the Department of Justice? 

Mr. Coldren. How they are classified in the appropriation bill, I 
am not sure. I never examined them, but I know that they are 
handled by the State Department officials. I have never looked into 
that, as to whether they come under the head of the State Department 
or not. 

The Chairman. We can get all of that evidence from the Auditor 
for the State and Other Departments. 

Mr. Coldren. I am informed that the appropriation for this court 
is carried in the consular and diplomatic bill, which is the State De¬ 
partment bill. 

Mr. Tavenner. Does Judge Thayer have to sign or in any way 
authorized or indorse these accounts? Is his signature used in any 
way in paying the rental of the buildings there? 

Mr. Curtis. As I stated yesterday, they give a receipt to the Chinese 
compradore. 

Mr. Tavenner. How does the judge figure in the payment of the 
rental of this building? 

Mr. Curtis. The marshal has made a contract with Mr. Wilder, 
and, of course, it is understood that the marshal of the court can not 
lease a building without the knowledge and consent of the judge. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know of your own knowledge that the 
judge knew about this? 

Mr. Curtis. In regard to the building, it is the natural assump¬ 
tion which must necessarily follow as a logical consequence that he 
would not leave one building and go to another. This building, No. 
12 Whangpoo Road, was moved into August, 1911, from No. 36 
Whangpoo Road. The judge knew that they moved the court from 


64 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


one building to another, and therefore he must have known that the 
rent was being paid. 

Mr. Tavenner. The particular building I had reference to is the 
one where you say the Government pays $200 for the building, but 
the man who owned the building only received $150. 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is not that the building which you have just re¬ 
ferred to as being the court ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; part of that building is used for residential 
purposes. Furthermore, I would call your attention to the state¬ 
ment showing that they do not have authority to grant leave of ab¬ 
sence to the judge of the United States court. That is the authority 
given to the Attorney General. The law provides for that. The 
court has simply drifted into the State Department; nobody has 
taken hold of it. It came into being by an act of legislation which 
was enacted hurriedly the last days of the session and which I was 
instrumental in having enacted. The very last day of the session 
Senator Spooner made the report as the sole member of the subcom¬ 
mittee and rushed it through. 

The Chairman. Without deciding what to do, I shall ask the 
Auditor for the State and Other Departments to be here to-morrow 
morning, and also the Chief of the Consular Bureau. 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that also ask Mr. 
Latham, who has charge of estates in the Auditor’s Office, to be 
present. 

Mr. Fergusson. Charge of estates of deceased American citizens 
in China? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. He has had charge of them for BO or 40 
years. 

The Chairman. What are his initials? 

Mr. Curtis. I think, I. O. Latham. I would also suggest that 
Mr. Morrison, the former financial Chief of the Department of State 
during the years that it is alleged these things occurred, be requested 
to be present. 

The Chairman. We can not hear them all in one day. 

(Thereupon the committee adjourned to meet on Saturday, Sep¬ 
tember 20, 1913, at 10.30 o’clock a. m.) 


Committee on Expenditures in 

The Department of Justice, 

House of Representatives, 
Saturday , September 20, 1913. 

The committee this day met, Hon. Robert F. Broussard (chair¬ 
man) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF MR. A. 0. LATHAM. 

The Chairman. What is your position? .,-1 

Mr. Latham. Clerk. 

The Chairman. In what office? 

Mr. Latham. Office of the Auditor for the State and Other Depart¬ 
ments. 

The Chairman. Mr. Latham, the committee is anxious to get some 
information relative to the vouchers of Judge Thayer, United States 
judge at Shanghai, China—the vouchers for his expenses while 
traveling as judge in his official capacity and the vouchers for the 
rent of the building wherein the court is held. Have you that in¬ 
formation at hand? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Will you please tell, if you know, just when Judge 
Thayer took charge of the office he now holds? 

Mr. Latham. I think he took charge January 1, 1909. 

The Chairman. Were you then occupying the office you do now in 
the auditor’s office? 

Mr. Latham. I was. 

The Chairman. So that you are familiar with all of the trans¬ 
actions with regard to the vouchers and their approval ? 

Mr. Latham. I think I am. 

The Chairman. Are his vouchers monthly vouchers or quarterly 
vouchers ? 

Mr. Latham. His salary is paid monthly by the disbursing officer, 
by the special disbursing officer, but the accounts are rendered quar¬ 
terly. 

The Chairman. Well, now, you examine his accounts quarterly. 
Please state to the committee how that is done so that your office may 
have a check upon the payment by the disbursing officer of the judge’s 
salary. 

Mr. Latham. Our office requires accounts to be rendered of salaried 
officers and also of the vouchers paid by the special disbursing officer. 
We do that for the reason that they do not always receive their 
salary in the same way; sometimes they are on leave of absence and 
then*they draw directly on the Treasury; but when they are there 
they draw from the special disbursing officer. 

The Chairman. Your office approves these vouchers for a quarter 
and the disbursing officer then pays that quarter monthly ? 

Mr. Latham. The disbursing officer renders his accounts quarterly, 
but his vouchers for salaries are generally monthly because, I sup- 

65 


9997—11 


-5 


66 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


pose, those officers want their salaries each month; but he renders an 
account at the end of the quarter, including the three vouchers for 
the salary of the officer. 

The Chairman. Then, as I understand it, the disbursing officer 
pays a quarter monthly and when the three months are up he then 
files with you the vouchers of the judge together with the abstract 
and the receipt which he has received for the money ? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. If your office disapproves of the payment, what 
is the Government’s method of covering this money into the Treas¬ 
ury ; that is, should a particular item be disapproved ? 

Mr. Latham. It is suspended; the item is suspended in the special 
disbursing officer’s account. 

The Chairman. You hold him accountable for it? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And he must go back to the judge, then? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir; he must go back to the officer and correct 
the accounts with him. 

The Chairman. Who is the disbursing officer to whom you refer 
in this instance? 

Mr. Latham. D. A. Wilson, jr., is the special disbursing officer, 
and he is also the marshal for the court. 

The Chairman. At Shanghai? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, the accusation is brought against Judge 
Thayer that at one time, for a period of more than five months, 
he was absent from China and residing temporarily in Japan, and 
the claim is made that he ought not to have received his salary dur¬ 
ing that period of time. Is there anything appearing on the vouch¬ 
ers that would indicate to you whether or not that is the fact? 

Mr. Latham. No, sir; there is not anything required from him as 
to whether he is present at his post or absent. 

The Chairman. Your office does not investigate that matter ? 

Mr. Latham. That is a matter that we take the Department of 
State’s approval for. The presumption is that they know, as an 
administrative department, where the officer is, and whether or not 
he is in the line of duty, and if the State Department approves 
Judge Thayer’s accounts, or any of these accounts, we take that as 
final in regard to such questions. 

The Chairman. Then the disbursing officer makes his report to 
the State Department? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And that comes to you through that channel? 

Mr. Latham. The accounts come to the auditor’s office through 
the State Department with its approval or nonapproval. 

The Chairman. What is the name of the official of the depart¬ 
ment through whom these accounts reach your office ? 

Mr. Latham. In the State Department? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Latham. The Bureau of Accounts and the disbursing clerk. 

The Chairman. Do you know the name of the chief of that bureau ? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir; his name is McNeir. 

Mr. Curtis. What was the name of the disbursing officer at the 
time these accounts were rendered? 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


67 


The Chairman. I want to get information from this officer as 
to the method of procedure between the State Department and the 
auditor’s office. 

Mr. Curtis. I understood your question to go to the disbursing 
officer at the time these particular accounts were rendered to the 
State Department. 

The Chairman. Well, the particular office in the State Department 
that receives these accounts and transmits them to the Auditor for 
the State Department. 

Mr. Curtis. Was not Mr. Morrison disbursing officer at that time ? 

Mr. Latham. Mr. Morrison was- 

The Chairman. I am trying to get that information with a view 
of securing the presence of the officer before the committee; of course, 
if he has come in recently there is some one in his office who can make 
the explanation. 

Mr. Latham. Mr. Morrison was the chief, and he is still in the 
office. 

The Chairman. Will you give us a sample of these vouchers—just 
any one of them—so far as Judge Thayer’s salary is concerned—just 
the wording of it ? I presume they are all worded alike. 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir; I think they are; but unfortunately we 
have not blanks prepared yet. I prepared blanks and submitted 
them to the Department of State and the Comptroller of the Treas¬ 
ury, but they have not yet been adopted and sent out, and we have 
to depend upon the blanks which they furnish us. The form that 
they put them in has not been prescribed by our office, but we take 
the form in which they have been sent in. I will show you one of 
them [producing voucher]. That is approved on the back, you will 
notice. 

The Chairman. I think I had better read this into the record: 

Account. 

The United States in account with Rufus H. Thayer, judge of the United States 

court for China, under the appropriation “ Salaries and expenses, United 

States court for China,” 1910. 

For month ending April 30,1910. 

Debtor. 


To salary from April 1 to 30, 1910-$666. 67 


666. 67 

Creditor. 

By draft No. 7, April 27, 1910 (voucher No. 7) : 

Amount_$717.18 

Loss by exchange-- 50. 51 

- 666.67 

666. 67 


Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge of the United States Court for China. 
Shanghai, China, December 15, 1910. 

(Endorsed:) Rufus H. Thayer, salary as judge. April T-30, 1910. U. S. 
Court for China. Department of State. Approved: Chandler Hale, Third 
Assistant Secretary. M. Received Jan. 19, 1911. Diplomatic and Consular 
Division, 7171. 









68 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


All of these vouchers are in that shape? 

Mr. Latham. No, sir; they are not all in that form. That was 
made out for an account which he drew on the Treasury Department, 
I suppose, because there is a loss by exchange included. I suppose 
he did not get his money there, from the special disbursing officer, 
but drew on the Treasury, and when they draw on the Treasury 
there is necessarily a loss, or a gain, by exchange. I will show you 
another one. 

The Chairman. Who loses this $50.51 ? 

Mr. Latham. The United States. 

The Chairman. In other words, his salary was payable to him 
where he was and whatever loss there was on the exchange had to be 
met out of the Treasury? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. I will show you another one of those ac¬ 
counts which will probably illustrate better the general run of them. 
Sometimes he has been on leave in this country, and he had to render 
accounts here, and he drew his money right out of the Treasury. 
Here is an account that represents the amount drawn on the special 
disbursing officer [producing voucher]. 

The Chairman. I will read this into the record: 


Account Current. 

The United States in account with Rufus H. Thayer, judge of the United States 
Court for China. Under the appropriation “ Salaries and expenses, United 
States Court for China,” 1911-12. 

For quarter ended June SO, 1912. 

Debtor. 


To salary from Apr. 1, 1912, to June 30, 1912. 


$ 2 , 000 . 00 


Creditor. 


2, 000.00 


By compradore orders: 

Compradore order No. 273, Apr. 30, 1912— 

Amount _ 666. 66 

Voucher No. 892. 

Compradore order No. 280, May 31, 1912— 

Amount_ 666. 67 

Voucher No. 916. 

Compradore order No. 282, June 30, 1912— 

Amount___ 4 _ 666. 67 

Voucher No. 929. 


2 , 000 . 00 

The above vouchers are sent in disbursing officer account for the quarter 
ended June 30, 1912. 


Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge of the United States Court for China. 


Shanghai, China, July 1, 1912. 


(Indorsed:) Law 11275. Not for ledger nor record. Department of State. 
Approved: Chandler Hale, Third Assistant Secretary. M. 

This is approved in the same way as the other one. The judge 
approves all of the accounts for his own salary ? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 








CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 69 

The Chairman. Does he approve the accounts for the district 
attorney there? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir; he approves all the accounts of the dis¬ 
bursing officer, which includes all their salaries. 

Mr. Curtis. Does he approve the marshal’s accounts? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Bailey. Does that include expenses for rent? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Both of these vouchers are dated at Shanghai. 
Do you know whether all of the vouchers that you have are dated 
at Shanghai or whether some of them are dated elsewhere? 

Mr. Latham. Well, that I am not able to say. 

The Chairman. We would have to go through them to ascertain 
that fact? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there very much work involved in that? 

Mr. Latham. That is, to go through them? 

The Chairman. Yes; in order to ascertain that fact. 

Mr. Latham. If you would go through all of them it would be con¬ 
siderable work, but you might take up one or two accounts. 

The Chairman. I was going to state that it might be possible to 
get. that statement for us from your office and send it to us without 
going over it here. Could you have that done in your office? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. You mean you want to cover the whole 
period of his service ? 

The Chairman. Yes. All we would want to get in this statement 
would be the vouchers signed at such and such a place, so as to show 
just where they were drawn. 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. There is another charge brought against Judge 
Thayer, that subsequent to this absence of five or more months he 
was absent for ten months, and we want to get information from 
these vouchers to show whether the vouchers were dated as though 
he were attending to the business of his office when in fact he was in 
Europe in one instance or in Japan in another instance, etc. 

Mr. Latham. Well, the only way you could get that would be for 
us to make a statement. If you know the period during which it is 
claimed he was absent, then we could tell you how the vouchers were 
drawn. 

The Chairman. We have the period; it is recited in this testi¬ 
mony, but it is not at hand. However, it is immaterial for the pur¬ 
pose of your examination now, because we could furnish those dates 
to you. 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And then those particular vouchers could be ex¬ 
amined. 

Mr. Latham. Well, I can furnish you the record for the whole of 
his term. 

The Chairman. Well, perhaps that would be better, to have infor¬ 
mation as to the whole of his term. 

Mr. Latham. That is, his receipts? 

The Chairman. Yes. 


70 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


Mr. Latham. The dates of them and the places. You do not want 
a copy of the receipts ? 

The Chairman. No; we have a sample of what they are and that 
will be in the record; there is no use of copying all of them, but 
merely the places where these vouchers were dated. 

Mr. Latham. For such and such quarters and for such and such 
months ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Latham. All right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Curtis informs me that you sent that identical 
information to the Printing Office yesterday to be printed, the very 
thing you have asked for. He tells me that that has been sent to the 
Printing Office, and that it is under the seal of the Secretary of the 
Treasury and is certified. 

The Chairman. You mean one of the exhibits? 

Mr. Tavenner. All of the exhibits to which these charges relate. 

The Chairman. Then it may not be necessary to have it done over 
again. 

Mr. Curtis. You recall certifying a lot of documents for Senator 
Hughes, do you not? 

Mr. Latham. I do not recall now. 

Mr. Curtis. And that you made a copy of the vouchers for the 
salary of Judge Thayer for certain months? 

Mr. Latham. I do not remember now. 

Mr. Tavenner. You heard the character of the information out¬ 
lined by the chairman. Does the information sent to the Printing 
Office include everything that he mentioned and desires? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes; certificate by certificate and voucher by voucher, 
all signed and sealed. 

Mr. Latham. Probably they would not show just what you are 
trying to get at, because he might be away from his post and not 
draw his money until he comes back to Shanghai, and he might 
draw the receipt at Shanghai. 

The Chairman. I see. It appears that we have a lot of testimony 
in course of printing at the Government Printing Office, and there¬ 
fore I do not know whether we want this testimony or not. If the 
testimony is already in the record it would be useless to put your 
office to the trouble of doing the work over again. We will wait until 
we get the printed report, and if that evidence is not in it, then I 
shall write you and ask you to comply with this request; otherwise 
it will be unnecessary for you to do the work. 

Mr. Coldren. I would like to ask the witness whether or not 
his office pays any attention, on a voucher for the salary of the 
judge of the United States Court for China, to the place where the 
voucher purports to have been drawn or dated? 

Mr. Latham. No, sir. If it comes to our office approved by the 
Department of State, we take it for granted that they, as an ad¬ 
ministrative department, know that it is correct. 

Mr. Coldren. If such a voucher for the salary of this judge should 
come to your office, dated London, England, or dated at some place 
in Japan, for salary for a particular month, would you question the 
payment of that voucher? 

Mr. Latham. Not at all. There is nothing in the law to require 
him to be at his post of duty continuously, nothing in regard to 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


71 


leaves of absence, or anything of that kind. As long as he holds the 
position and draws his money under the approval of the adminis¬ 
trative officer, we pay it on his vouchers. 

Thn Chairman. \ou pay it so long as there is a fund available 
for that purpose? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. Of course, we do not exceed any fund. 
There is enough appropriated to pay his salary, and he generally 
draws it all. 

Mr. Tavenner. Does not the law require that if he is absent that 
he should file certificates of his absence? 

Mr. Latham. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the Dockery Act it says: 

Judges receiving salaries from the Treasury of the United States shall be 
paid monthly by the disbursing officer of the Department of Justice, and to him 
all certificates of nonabsence or of the cause of absence of judges in the Terri¬ 
tories shall be sent. 

Mr. Latham. This court is established under a different law, which 
does not embody any requirements of that kind. 

The Chairman. If this law applied, what would your office have 
to do with the enforcement of it? 

Mr. Latham. If that law applied to this court we would sus¬ 
pend his salary until he gave us certificates or satisfactory evidence 
that he was present. 

The Chairman. Then that is a matter that your office determines? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You construe the law as applied to a particular 
judge, whose accounts come to your department ? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And your office holds that this judge does not 
come within the purview of this act? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. This court is not under the Department 
of Justice; it is under the Department of State, and under a very 
different law and regulations from the United States courts in this 
country. 

Mr. Fergusson. 1 understand you to say, then, that this judge 
can legally be in Japan and draw his salary away from his jurisdic¬ 
tion and draw for the time he is in Japan? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Fergusson. He can lawfully do that under the statute as you 
construe it? 

Mr. Latham. That is the way our office understands it. 

Mr. Cramton. Why is it that if he has filed a leave of absence 
that then the vouchers take a different course and go to different offi¬ 
cials ? 

Mr. Latham. I do not understand your question. 

Mr. Cramton. I understood you to say that if a judge was on 
leave of absence then a different course was followed. 

Mr. Latham. No, sir; there is no different course. We have the 
State Department to approve each of these accounts, whether he is 
absent or present, and we honor his vouchers for salary when the 
State Department has approved his accounts and the disbursing 
officer’s accounts. We have no regulations governing the court; 
we go bv the law as passed by Congress. There have been no regu¬ 
lations established in regard to absences, no forms yet prescribed, 


72 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


and we have never considered that the question of absence or pres¬ 
ence affected the account in any way if properly approved. 

Mr. Tavenner. Has any court ever held that the Dockery Act does 
not refer to this particular court in China ? 

Mr. Latham. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Tavenner. Upon what do you base your opinion that this 
court in China is not under this law ? It seems to me that it is very 
clear. This act provides that “ All other accounts relating to the 
business of the Department of Justice, or of the courts of the United 
States other than consular courts, shall be sent with their vouchers 
to the Attorney General and examined under his supervision.” This 
court is not a consular court, is it? 

Mr. Latham. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. It seems to me that it would come under this act 
here. This act reads, “ The courts of the United States other than 
consular courts,” and if Judge Thayer is under this act, then it would 
be necessary for him to file certificates showing absence from his 
jurisdiction. 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do other judges file certificates of that character? 

Mr. Latham. I do not know, sir. I am not engaged in the De¬ 
partment of Justice, and the United States courts in this country 
come under the Department of Justice. This court comes under the 
State Department, and the State Department is supposed to regu¬ 
late this court. The Department of Justice does not have anything to 
do with it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is there any law T that places this judge under the 
jurisdiction of the State Department ? 

Mr. Latham. I do not know that there is. There was a little 
trouble at first to know just where the jurisdiction was that had 
charge of this court. Some question came up in regard to this—I 
believe some remittance was made of fees or a remittance from some 
estate, or something of that kind, and the Department of Justice 
would not receive it. It was submitted to the officer in the Treasury 
who decides these points, and he would not take any action in it, and 
it was sent to the Auditor for the State Department, and I gave the 
directions as to how the money was to be deposited, and took the 
responsibility of settling the accounts without any authority from 
any place. The Department of Justice would not receive the ac¬ 
counts, and disclaimed any jurisdiction over them, and the State 
Department, of course, had to take them. When the first accounts 
were sent in, they bundled them up and sent them over to the Audi¬ 
tor and said they could not make anything out of them, and I had to 
take them and straighten them out and settle them and require 
proper returns to be made of the fees, and do everything that was 
necessary in connection with them. They have been running that 
way ever since, and nobody has questioned it. 

The Chairman. Is that true in regard to the insular courts in 
Hawaii and Porto Rico? Is it true that the Department of Justice 
has taken no jurisdiction over those courts in the sense you have just 
mentioned, in referring to its lack of jurisdiction over the court at 
Shanghai ? 

Mr. Latham. I am not acquainted with those courts. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 73 

The Chairman. Do you audit the accounts of the judge in Porto 
Rico? 

Mr. Latham. No, sir. 

The Chairman. I understand that that court is under the War 
Department, 

Mr. Latham. That is under the War Department—the insular 
court. 

The Chairman. It seems to me that Congress ought to take some 
action to place these various courts and the officials of these courts 
under the proper officer. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe it is stated right here. The main point 
here is whether this court is a consular court, because the Dockery 
Act refers specifically to all courts except consular courts. I believe 
it would be a good thing to read this particular paragraph into the 
record. Section 13 of the Dockery Act reads as follows: 

Before transmission to the Department of the Treasury the accounts of 
district attorneys, assistant attorneys, marshals, commissioners, clerks, and 
oher officers of the courts of the United States, except consular courts, made 
out and approved as required by law, and accounts relating to prisoners con¬ 
victed or held for trial in any court of the United States, and all other accounts 
relating to the business of the Department of Justice or of the courts of the 
United States other than consular courts, shall be sent with their vouchers to 
the Attorney General and examined under his supervision. 

Judges receiving salaries from the Treasury of the United States shall be 
paid monthly by the disbursing officer of the Department of Justice, and to him 
all certificates of nonabsence or of the cause of absence of judges in the Terri¬ 
tories shall be sent. 

The Chairman. My information is that the judges of the courts 
having insular jurisdiction are not paid in that way, despite the fact 
that this law exists. They are paid from the War Department. The 
Attorney General claims that the War Department has jurisdiction 
over these courts in Porto Rico, Hawaii, and in the Philippins, and 
these accounts all go to the War Department. They ought to go to 
the Department of Justice, and the accounts of the courts ought to be 
audited by the Auditor for the State an*d other Departments. You 
say they are not audited by him ? 

Mr. Latham. No, sir; they must be audited by the Auditor for the 
War Department. 

Mr. Coldren. Can you tell us what can be judged as to the view 
of Congress concerning the position of this court relative to its ac¬ 
counts from the appropriation bills passed since the passage of the 
act establishing that court for China? In what appropriation bill 
does the appropriation for this court appear? 

Mr. Latham. In the diplomatic bill. 

Mr. Coldren. In the diplomatic and consular appropriation bill? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Coldren. Is that the same bill which provides for the courts 
that come under the Department of Justice? 

Mr. Latham. Not at all. It is the only court provided for in 
that bill, except the consular courts. 

The Chairman. It is the only court of that character we have 
anywhere ? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And it was brought about by virtue of com¬ 
plaints concerning the consular court at that point. 


74 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Congress sought to change it and make it a real 
court. 

Mr. Latham. That is the way I understand it. 

The Chairman. And instead of having a civilian or layman pre¬ 
siding over this court Congress thought it would be better to create 
a court, just as courts in this country are created, so that American 
citizens could go into a regularly constituted court. 

Mr. Coldren. And the expenses of that court, including the sal¬ 
aries of the judge, marshal, district attorney, and clerks, and the 
rentals and traveling expenses—are they all paid from this diplo¬ 
matic appropriation bill ? 

Mr. Latham. They are paid from the appropriation for the 
United States Court in China, which appropriation is made in the 
diplomatic bill. It is embodied in the diplomatic bill. 

The Chairman. The vouchers show the amounts and on whav 
account they are paid ? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The vouchers I saw had a provision in quotation 
showing that. Do you audit the traveling expenses of Judge 
Thayer ? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you the dates there, Mr. Curtis, when you 
claim that Judge Thayer stopped at Hongkong? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir; the 31st of March, 1910. He was down 
there on the 31st. 

The Chairman. I will read you the specific charge, Mr. Latham, 
and then we want to find the voucher for this item and see what 
appears on it. Mr. Curtis says here: 

The vouchers show that $74.94 was the actual amount paid for expenses dur¬ 
ing the time he remained at Hongkong when he should have been in Shanghai, 
Hongkong being a British colony, and Judge Thayer having absolutely no duties 
to perform there, his only reason for stopping at Hongkong being to transship 
from the steamer from Shanghai to Canton, and on his return on the boat on 
which he came from Canton transship to Shanghai. 

What is the date of that ? 

Mr. Curtis. It is from the 4th of March, 1910, to the 29th of 
March, 1910. 

The Chairman. We want the vouchers then for the month of 
March. These vouchers are made quarterly, as I understand it, 
charging expense^? 

Mr. Latham. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curtis. May I read something to you on the subject of the 
jurisdiction of this committee over this court? 

The Chairman. The jurisdiction of this committee is recited in 
the Rules of the House, and we put a statement of that in the first 
hearing. It is rule 42, and it was put in at the beginning of the hear¬ 
ing in order that there might be no misunderstanding of it. That 
rule appears on the first page of the hearings. We have a right to in¬ 
vestigate everything pertaining to the expenditure of money by the 
Department of Justice. Now, while this court ought, in my judg¬ 
ment, to be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, the 
facts show that it is not. Congress has acquiesced in the ruling of the 
auditor by making appropriations for the support of this court out- 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


75 


side of the appropriation for the Department of Justice—that is, 
Congress has placed the appropriation for the support of this court 
in the diplomatic and consular appropriation bill. 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Chairman, in this connection, I would like to say 
that the title of this bill or act creating the United States Court for 
China shows that it is an act creating a United States Court for 
China and it describes the jurisdiction thereof. The act creates a 
court of the United States, as its title specifically states. It is a 
court of record, with a seal prescribed by the said act, with a judge, 
district attorney, clerk and marshal, all appointed by the President, 
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The said judge 
is not required to give a bond for the faithful performance of the 
duties of his office, nor is he held liable for negligence and misconduct 
as a public officer when performing judicial duties, as a consul in 
in China is when performing judicial duties. (See sec. 4110, Rev. 
Stat., and also sec. 1697, Rev. Stat.) 

The United States consular courts in China are not courts of 
record, in that they have no seal as a court, using the seal of the con¬ 
sulate; the judges of these courts give bonds for the faithful perform¬ 
ance of the duties of their office, and are made liable when acting 
judicially for all negligence and misconduct. (See secs. 4110 and 
1697, Rev. Stat.) Further, the act creating the United States Court 
for China differentiates between it and the consular court, and de¬ 
fines the jurisdiction of each. Hence the United States Court for 
China, appeals from which lie to the United States Circuit Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at San Francisco, and thence to the 
United States Supreme Court, is one of the courts of the United 
States, and comes within the provisions of the Dockery Act, approved 
July 31,1894 (28 Stat. L., 210). Section 13 of that act has just been 
read. That act provides that the accounts required of the judge shall 
be paid by the Department of Justice, and it requires the making of 
certificates as to absence or nonabsence. 

The Chairman. It is useless for this committee to look into that 
question. The act has been construed by a department, and it has 
been held that the accounts of this court should go to the State De¬ 
partment and not to the Department of Justice. The Attorney 
General has refused to take charge of this court, and has stated that 
it belongs to the Department of State; and Congress has uniformly 
recognized the position taken by the Attorney General and the rul¬ 
ing of the Auditor for the State and Other Departments by making 
the appropriations for the support of this court not to the Depart¬ 
ment of Justice, but to the Department of State. That being true, 
T do not think we can go any further with it, and we should refer 
this matter, in so far as it relates to expenditures, to the Committee 
on Expenditures in the State Department. 

Mr. Cramton. The Department of Justice should take jurisdic¬ 
tion, but, as a matter of fact, they have not done so. They have not 
had the money to expend on account of this court, and therefore 
there is no expenditure by the Department of Justice involved here. 

The Chairman. There has been no expenditure on this account 
by the Department of Justice at all. The matter having come to us 
in this shape, all that we can do with it is to send a copy of the 
hearings we have had to the Committee on Expenditures in the State 
Department and call their attention to it and let them deal with it as 




76 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


they deem proper. I do not think that we have any jurisdiction over 
the matter, because it does not involve any expenditure bv the De¬ 
partment of Justice, and that is all we are authorized to investigate. 
This construction of the law by the Attorney General may be wrong, 
but it is the law all the same. 

Mr. Fergusson. As a matter of fact, they have not expended any¬ 
thing and we have nothing to investigate. 

Mr. Curtis. In the act creating the court nothing was said as to 
what jurisdiction it should come under. The act simply creates it 
as a court of the United States. I spoke to the solicitor at that time 
about it, and told him that we had no books, and that he should have 
a library. I think he made a recommendation to buy us some books. 
However that was. we got some books for the library. Since then 
the appropriation for the support of the court has drifted into the 
State Department in some way. 

The Chairman. This committee was organized by Congress for 
the purpose of investigating expenditures in the Department of Jus¬ 
tice. In this case it appears that there was no expenditure made 
by the Department of Justice. If there were no committee with juris¬ 
diction over this matter, we might say that, having taken up the sub¬ 
ject for investigation, we might proceed with it, but there is a com¬ 
mittee with jurisdiction over this matter, and this committee is not 
ready to encroach upon the jurisdiction of that other committee. 
Had these facts been known from the beginning, our consideration 
of the matter would have been very short. There is no expenditure 
by the Department of Justice involved in any of these transactions, 
and this committee has no authority to investigate the expenditures 
of any other department. 

Mr. Cramton. It seems to me that the most we can do, under the 
circumstances, is to consider the advisability of recommending legis¬ 
lation to straighten out this tangle. 

The Chairman. Of course, we will have to do that as individual 
members, because that belongs to another committee. 

Mr. Bailey. I move, Mr. Chairman, that the printed proceedings 
of this hearing be transmitted by the chairman of this committee to 
the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of State in order 
that they may act as they may deem proper with regard to these 
charges. 

The Chairman. The motion is made that the printed proceedings 
of this hearing be transmitted by the chairman of this committee 
to the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of State, in 
order that they may act as they may deem proper with regard to 
these charges. 

(The above motion being put by the chairman, the same was car¬ 
ried unanimously.) 

Mr. Latham. This [producing an account] is Judge Thayer’s ac¬ 
count in which he made that charge at Hongkong. It was sus¬ 
pended by our office for explanation, and that [indicating] is his 
explanation. It was afterwards allowed on his explanation of why 
he was detained in Hongkong. 

Mr. Coldren. I should have been very glad to have presented 
Judge Thayer’s very full and frank letter in explanation of that 
trip to Hongkong, and if the committee has the time, I would like 
to read it. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


77 


The Chairman. It would have been fair to put his explanation in 
the record, but inasmuch as we have referred this printed matter 
to the other committee, I do not know- 

Mr. Curtis (interposing). I have a copy of that letter already 
set forth in the exhibits. A copy of that has been inserted in the 
record. It was furnished by the Treasury Department from the 
auditor’s office. 

The Chairman. Is it in your testimony? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Bailey. Has that exhibit been ordered printed? 

The Chairman. It is being printed now. 

Mr. Tavenner. Referring to those features of this case that do 
not come under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Expenditures 
in the Department of State, will they be referred to the Committee 
on the Judiciary? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir; we adopted a resolution the other day 
to do that, and as soon as this matter is printed, I will send a copy 
of it to the chairman of that committee with a letter stating that 
this committee refers it to them for their consideration. 

Mr. Coldren. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
feel it due to Judge Thayer to ask permission of this committee, since 
the record of the hearing up to this point is to be transmitted to other 
committees of Congress for such action as they may see fit, to have 
the privilege of asking Mr. Curtis a few questions. I shall not pro¬ 
long the matter with the few questions which I wish to ask. I do 
not think it will take me over 10 or 15 minutes, but I think it is 
important and in justice to Judge Thayer that those things which-1 
propose to ask may be brought out and transmitted as a part of these 
hearings—Mr. Curtis’s answers to those questions—for the considera¬ 
tion of the other committees. 

The Chairman. I have no objection, so far as I am concerned. 
Mr. Curtis will probably have more to say about that. We have 
already decided that we have no jurisdiction. 

Mr. Curtis. If this committee has no jurisdiction, then I will an¬ 
swer your questions before the Committee on the Judiciary and answer 
them under oath. 

Mr. Coldren. The point I make is this, that the present record, 
which is ex parte, is to be transmitted to other committees to deter¬ 
mine whether or not it furnishes a sufficient basis for an investiga¬ 
tion, and in a formal way, in a way it has been made public and 
published in the newspapers and all that. I have knowledge of some 
facts which in simple justice to Judge Thayer 

Mr. Cramton. The full case has not been put in on the other side 
as against Mr. Thayer and Mr. Curtis may ask us to listen to some 
other matters when we have other matters to attend to. 

Mr. Coldren. I do not like to take up much time of the committee, 
and up to this time I have occupied scarcely any time, but I think, in 
turning over this record to other committees for their considera- 

tl 0 Mr. Cramton (interposing). You yourself do not represent Judge 
Thayer officially ? 

Mr Coldren. Only by the courtesy of the committee. I am a 
friend of Judge Thayer, and partly by reason of my former part- 




78 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


nership with him and my intimate relations with him I thought that 
I ought to appear here and that he would expect me to appear here 
and ask the courtesy of the committee to appear in his behalf. 

Mr. Cramton. It has been transferred to other committees. 

Mr. Curtis. If I had seen fit to give this to the newspapers, I could 
have gone to them before. 

Mr. Fergusson. My motion is, first, that you do not appear here 
except at the courtesy of the committee and not at its request. In 
the second place, we have done absolutely nothing; we have met at 
the request of Mr. Curtis, and he has submitted what he has in abso¬ 
lutely good faith, and we have decided that we have not jurisdiction 
to go further. 

The Chairman. We stopped without even securing an answer to 
the last question. We have no right to investigate matters over which 
we have no jurisdiction. 

Mr. Coldren. If there had been no publication I would be de¬ 
lighted to go out of this committee room without asking any ques¬ 
tions, but the difficulty is this: Suppose this matter is referred to 
other committees, and suppose there is an adjournment of Congress 
shortly, at any rate, that the committee does not take it up before 
the adjournment, the matter will lie with the printed charges against 
Judge Thayer, w T ith insinuations of various kinds, and this committee 
does not give the source from which this has sprung. I want to put 
in the record a few questions to show the animus and the source and 
the probable- 

Mr. Fergusson (interposing). That will lead to a personal quarrel 
with Mr. Curtis, and I am against it. 

Mr. Coldren. Very well. Is that fair to Judge Thayer? 

Mr. Fergusson. I do not care whether it is or not. Judge Thayer 
is entitled to a full hearing before other committees, and he will have 
the benefit of what Mr. Curtis has said. 

The Chairman. We can not proceed with an investigation when 
this committee has decided that it has not jurisdiction. As a Member 
of Congress, under my oath, I would feel as though, even if this com¬ 
mittee had not transmitted the testimony, that it having been taken 
at the public expense, it should be transmitted to some other com¬ 
mittee which has jurisdiction. I feel that I should do that on my 
own responsibility. 

Mr. Coldren. I fully agree with that; under the circumstances 
there is nothing else to do; but I feel that it is only simple justice to 
the judge that a few matters might be brought out here to indicate 
the animus, and I may say further, the credibility of the witness 
who has appeared here. 

The Chairman. He has not testified under oath, so his credibility 
is not involved. We tried to ascertain whether there was a prima 
facie case to go into that matter, and when we came to the question 
of jurisdiction we found that it did not lie with this committee, and 
so we decided to turn the prima facie case over to the other com¬ 
mittees. 

Mr. Curtis. All of the specifications are supported by documentary 
evidence under the seal of the Treasury Department ’ and the State 
Department. 

(Thereupon the committee adjourned.) 


CHARGES OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS MADE 
AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER, JUDGE OF THE 
UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA 
AT SHANGHAI, CHINA 


79 











' 

■ 















CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


Specification No. 1. 

That the said Rufus H. Thayer, at Shanghai, in the Republic 
of China, heretofore, to wit, between the 23d day of June, 1909,. 
and the 21st day of September, 1910 (23 June, 1909, to 20 Sept., 
1909, and .23 June, 1910, to 21 Sept., 1910), being then and 
there judge of the United States court for China, in the Republic 
of China, a court of special limited jurisdiction, created by act of 
Congress of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. L., 814), limited by treaty to 
jurisdiction over citizens of the United States in China, said judge 
being appointed for 10 years by the President, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, and removable by the President 
for cause, did, knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully, then and there, 
between the said 23d day of June, 1909, and the 21st day of Sep¬ 
tember, 1910, make and cause to be made, present and cause to be 
presented, certain false, fictitious, and fraudulent accounts, vouch¬ 
ers, and claims, to the Auditor for the State and Other Depart¬ 
ments, and to the Treasurer of the United States, at Washington, 
D. C., for approval and payment, the said false, fictitious, and fraud¬ 
ulent accounts, vouchers, and claims, so made and presented, were 
in respect to salary as said judge of said court, for alleged services 
rendered, but which were not rendered and could not be rendered 
for the reason that he was away from his post of duty in China for 
nearly 6 months, to wit, 5 months and 25 days, without leave of 
absence granted him, and without the knowledge of the Depart¬ 
ment of State, or of the Attorney General, or of the President; that 
the said false, fictitious, and fraudulent accounts, vouchers, and 
claims, inter alia bear false certificates that the several sums of 
money named therein were actually due for services rendered, and 
purport on their face to have been signed by the said Rufus H. 
Thayer, at Shanghai, China, on the dates therein named, when he 
was on said dates, as a matter of fact, not in China, but away from 
China during the said 5 months and 25 days, in Rokkosan, near 
Kobe, in the Empire of Japan, where he had rented a bungalow 
for a part of the spring, summer, and fall; the said Auditor for the 
State and Other Departments and the said Treasurer of the United 
States being then and there persons and officers in the civil service 
of the United States, the said Rufus H. Thayer knowing said accounts, 
vouchers, receipts, and claims to be false, fictitious, and fraudu¬ 
lent; and for the purpose of obtaining and aiding to obtain the pay¬ 
ment and approval of said false, fictitious, and fraudulent accounts, 
vouchers, receipts, and claims, he, the said Rufus H. Thayer did, 
between the said 23d day of June, 1909, and the 21st day of Sep¬ 
tember, 1910, then and there make, use, and cause to be made 



82 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


and used certain false accounts, vouchers, receipts, and claims 
amounting to the sum, to wit, of $5,333.10, lawful money of the 
United States, in words and figures set forth on pages 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 
13, 14, and 15 of Exhibit No. 1, hereto attached and made part 
hereof. 

He, the said Rufus H. Thayer, then and there knowing the said 
accounts, vouchers, receipts, and claims to contain fraudulent and 
fictitious entries, with fraudulent design then and there to cheat 
and defraud the Government of the United States contrary to the 
form of the statute in such case made and provided and against 
the peace and dignity of the United States of America. 

NOTES ON THE LAW AND FACTS UNDER SPECIFICATION NO. 1. 

Law. —The above specification is drawn under section 35 of the 
Criminal Code of the United States, which was, before the codifica¬ 
tion of the criminal laws, section 5438 of the Revised Statutes. 

The specification is framed practically on the indictments set forth 
in the case of Ex parte Shaffenburg (4 Dillon, 271; Federal Cases No. 
12696, vol. 21, p. 1144), U. S. v. Ingraham (155 U. S., 434), and of 
U. S. v. Dimmick (116 Fed. Rep., 825). Shaffenburg was a marshal 
of the United States for the district of Colorado, who made fraudu¬ 
lent claims for alleged services rendered. He was indicted, con¬ 
victed, and sentenced to imprisonment for the term of two years in 
the penitentiary of the State of Kansas. This case was tried before 
Circuit Justice Miller, and Circuit Judge Dillon who, in delivering the 
judgment of the court, said: 

That if a marshal of the United States for a given district shall make out a false 
and fraudulent bill against the United States for official services or expenses, and 
present the same to the court for approval, and, after having secured that, shall for¬ 
ward the same to the Treasury Department at Washington for payment, or otherwise 
cause the same to be there presented for this purpose, this is the making in such dis¬ 
trict of a false and fraudulent bill, within the meaning and purpose of the statute. 

Such has been the construction which has heretofore been put upon this useful and 
necessary statute in the courts in this circuit, and elsewhere, so far as we know. 

The statute distinguishes between the making and the presenting of a fraudulent 
account or bill. It makes each a distinct offense. It may be that the offense of 
presenting a false bill or account to the Treasury Department in Washington can only 
be prosecuted in the courts of the District of Columbia; but the offense of making a 
false bill or account may be prosecuted in the judicial district in which the fraudulent 
claim is made. 

What constitutes or consummates the making of a false claim within the meaning 
of the statute may be difficult to define so as to embrace within the definition all 
cases that might arise. 

The said Rufus H. Thayer, being judge of the United States court 
for China, could not be tried in China, for the reason there is no other 
judge or court to try him. But he could be tried in the District of 
Columbia for the reason that the said false claims and vouchers were 
presented there for payment and approval. 

The Ingraham case was tried in 1891 before Judge Carpenter in the 
Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Rhode Island. 
In this case Royal Ingraham was charged under section 5438, Revised 
Statutes (35 Criminal Code), in that he did knowingly, willfully, and 
unlawfully make and present and cause to be made and presented for 
payment and approval to the Third Auditor of the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment a certain claim for the sum of $318 for payment and reimburse¬ 
ment to him of certain alleged expenses of the last sickness and burial 



CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


83 


of Freelove Ingraham, who in her lifetime had been a pensioner of the 
United States, which said claim was false, fraudulent, and fictitious. 
He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment 
m the Rhode Island State prison to hard labor and to pay the costs 
of secution. 



The first count of the indictment against Walter N. Dimmick 
(116 Fed. Rep., 825) was brought under section 5438, Revised Stat¬ 
utes (sec. 35, Criminal Code of the United States). The said Dim¬ 
mick was a clerk in the United States mint in San Francisco; as such 
clerk he presented for payment a bill for $498.37 to W. K. Cole, 
cashier ol said mint, for certain lead pipe and sheet lead which had 
been purchased by the United States for its mint from the Selby 
Smelting & Lead Co., a corporation, and which bid the United States 
had already paid, the said Dimmick knowing said bill had been 
paid, and knowing that the said Selby Smelting & Lead Co. had no 
other or further charge or claim against the United States or against 
the mint of the United States at San Francisco. Dimmick was tried, 
convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary. Counsel for Dimmick 
contended and the prosecution conceded that the said bill does not, 
and never did, contain any “ fraudulent or fictitious statement or 
entry”; therefore said counsel insisted that the case as presented by 
the first count is not within the statute. 

. The court said: 

But we think there is nothing in this position of counsel for the plaintiff in error. 
The character of the claim—that is to say, whether true, genuine, and honest, or 
false, fictitious, and fraudulent—must be determined in view of all of the facts and 
circumstances attending it. If it be originally forged, or otherwise fraudulently 
concocted, its presentation for payment with knowledge of the facts must necessarily 
be fictitious and fraudulent. Every whit as much so is a similar demand based upon 
acclaim originally valid, but which the party presenting the claim knows has thereto¬ 
fore been paid, and is no longer a subsisting, honest, and just demand, or which he 
knows he is wholly unauthorized to present and demand or receive any money on. 
(Dimmick v. U. S., 116 Fed. Rep., 825, p. 828.) 

It is respectfully submitted that the absence of the said Rufus H. 
Thayer from China, to which country he was appointed as judge, 
without leave of absence, for over 16 months in a little over 3 years, 
drawing his salary in Japan and Europe on vouchers purporting 
to be dated and signed by him in Shanghai, was unlawful, and that 
he was “ wholly unauthorized to present and demand or receive any 
money” on said vouchers for salary for the many months he was 
absent from his post of duty without rendering any services whatever 
to the Government of the United States. 

The said Rufus H. Thayer can not be strictly said to be the expe¬ 
rienced lawyer contemplated by the act of June 30, 1906, creating 
said court, as a necessary prerequisite for appointment of judge of 
said court, in that his course of study preparatory to admission to 
the bar of the Distiict of Columbia in 1873 was a two years’ course of 
study in one of Washington’s night law schools when he was a clerk 
in the Treasury Department, and when the examinations for admis¬ 
sion to the bar were comparatively easy, as compared with those of 
recent years. He was appointed clerk in the Treasury Department 
in 1871, and remained in the capacity of clerk in the Treasury De¬ 
partment after studying law and without practicing it until 1886, 
some 15J years, when his services as clerk were terminated under 
President Cleveland’s administration. He thereafter for several 


84 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


years worked as a clerk in Washington, and finally entered upon 
the practice of the law. Such a course of study and experience as a 
Treasury Department clerk for 15 years can hardly be said to qualify 
a man for the office of judge of an extraterritorial court in China, 
before which questions of international law must be decided, as well 
as questions of admiralty and equity. 

Notes on the facts in the above specification. —The salary of 
the said Rufus H. Thayer in China is $8,000 a year as judge, haying 
a purchasing power in that country equal to $25,000 in the United 
States. 

He remained away from his said post of duty without leave of 
absence granted him, and without the knowledge of the Department 
of State, or of the Attorney General, or of the President, for nearly 
six months. During this time citizens of the United States, for¬ 
eigners and natives, in China.were without a court in which to seek 
redress against Americans, and Americans there were completely at 
the mercy of an incompetent young man, so-called judge of the infe¬ 
rior United States court, known as the consular court of the United 
States, having a jurisdiction in civil cases up to $500 and in criminal 
cases of offenses the punishment of which imprisonment of 60 days 
might be imposed, and having jurisdiction in preliminary hearings 
of felonies, to commit for trial to the said United States court for 
China. 

The said consular court was presided over by one Frank W. Had¬ 
ley, vice consul of the United States, as judge; the said Hadley was 
not a lawyer, nor had he ever been admitted to practice law in any 
State or Territory of the United States, and was wholly incompetent 
under the rules of said consular court to practice as a lawyer in said 
court over which he presided as judge had he not been a judge thereof. 

That citizens of the United States did suffer damage by reason of 
the gross ignorance and incompetency of said Frank W. Hadley as 
judge of said consular court, and the said Rufus H. Thayer well knew 
that relief could not be had by appeal from said consular court to 
the said United States court for China while he remained in Japan, 
especially by citizens committed for trial to the said United States 
court for China, or obtain any redress in admiralty cases or other 
civil cases where ships or defendants were permitted by the consular 
court to leave the jurisdiction of the court without giving bond. 

The said Rufus II. Thayer well knew that under his oath of office 
and under his commission his post of duty was in China, not Japan; 
that it was his duty to remain there and administer justice to the 
best of his ability, instead of living in Japan and sending from 
Japan fictitious vouchers, claims, and receipts with certificates that 
the said sums of money therein named were actually due for services 
actually rendered, under date of Shanghai, China. 

Thus he deceived the Auditor for the State and Other Departments 
and the Treasurer of the United States, leading those officers to be¬ 
lieve that said Rufus H. Thayer was at his post of duty in China, and 
had actually remained there and performed the duties of judge of 
the United States court for China, instead of being absent from his 
post of duty without leave of absence granted. 

That the fact that the said Rufus H. Thayer was in the Empire of 
Japan in the month of July, 1909, may be seen from a certified copy 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


85 


of an order of the United States court for China, executed at 
Rokkosan, Japan, on the 28th day of July, 1909 (see Exhibit No. 9, 
hereto attached), and that he was there at other dates may be seen 
from the hotel register of the Occidental Hotel, Kobe, and steamship 
passenger lists there. 

The records of the steamship passenger offices in Shanghai, as well 
as the sailing list of passengers published in the daily and weekly 
papers of Shanghai, will show the said Thayer’s absence from China, 
as follows, namely: 

R. H. Thayer left Shanghai, China, June 23, 1909, on board the 
steamship Tenyo Maru for Kobe, Japan (North China Herald for 
June 26, 1909, p. 754), and returned to Shanghai from Kobe on board 
the steamship Derfflinger on the 20th September, 1909 (North 
China Herald for Sept. 25, 1909, p. 750). 

The said Thayer left Shanghai June 23, 1910, for Kobe, Japan, on 
board the steamship Tonkin (North China Herald for July 1, 1910, 
p. 60), and returned from Kobe on September 21, 1910, on board the 
steamship Tourane (North China Herald for Sept. 23, 1910, p. 752). 

The said North China Herald is the official reporter of the British 
supreme court and British consulate at Shanghai and is on file in 
the Library of Congress at Washington. 

Aside from being absent in Japan, as above charged, the said 
R. H. Thayer has made pleasure voyages and trips to Manila, 
Philippine Islands, and to the British colony of Hongkong, from 
Shanghai, China, in neither of which places did he have any business 
or jurisdiction, and yet he charged the Government his hotel and 
other private expenses. Further, as is shown in specification No. 2, 
he was in Europe and America. These absences without leave 
aggregate over 16^ months in about 3 years. 

Summary of amount of salary due and paid said Thayer from the 1st day of June, 1909, to 
the 30th day of September, 1909, and from the 1st day of June, 1910, to the 30th day of 
September, 1910; the amount of salary overpaid on false salary vouchers during said 
periods, together with the total amount set forth on the face of the said false vouchers: 

Said Thayer, outside of China without leave from June 23, 1909, to Sept. 20, 

1909, 2 months and 27 days; June 23, 1910, to Sept. 21, 1910, 2 months 
and 28 days; total absence without leave, 1909 and 1910, 5 months and 


'25 days: 

Salary per annum.$8,000. 00 

Salary per month. 666. 66 

Salary per day. 22. 22 


5 months’ salary, at $666.66. 3, 333. 30 

•25 days’ salary, at $22.22. 555. 50 


Total salary overpaid during 1909 and 1910. 3,888. 80 


23 days in China, in June, 1909, at $22.22. 511. 06 

10 days in China, in September, 1909, at $22.22.. 222. 20 

23 days in China, in June, 1910, at $22.22. 511. 06 

.9 days in China, in September, 1910, at $22.22... 199. 98 


Salary due while in China, during June and September, 1909 and 
1910.-. 1,444.30 


Total amount on face of said false vouchers for salary during said 

months of 1909 and 1910.. — . 5,333.10 





















86 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


Specification No. 2. 

That he, the said Rufus H. Thayer, did, between the 17th day of 
April, 1911, and the 5th day of October, 1912, knowingly, willfully, 
and unlawfully make, and caused to be made, present, and caused to 
be presented certain false, fictitious, and fraudulent accounts, vouch¬ 
ers, receipts, and claims (in respect to salary as judge of said court 
while in Europe and America 10 months and 7 days away from his 
post of duty in China, without leave of absence and without legal or 
moral reasons for absenting himself from China) to the Auditor for 
the State and Other Departments and to the Treasurer of the United 
States, at Washington, D. C., for approval and payment, the said 
Auditor for the State and Other Departments and the said Treasurer 
of the United States being then and there persons and officers in the 
civil service of the United States, knowing said accounts, vouchers, 
receipts, and claims to be false, fictitious, and fraudulent; and for 
the purpose of obtaining and aiding to obtain the payment and 
approval of said false, fictitious, and fraudulent accounts, vouchers, 
receipts, and claims he, the said Rufus H. Thayer, did, between said 
dates, then and there make, use, and cause to be made and used cer¬ 
tain false accounts, vouchers, receipts, and claims amounting to 
$8,666.40 lawful money of the United States, in words and figures 
set forth on pages 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of Exhibit No. 1, 
hereto attached and made part hereof, and as set forth in the drafts 
drawn by the said Rufus H. Thayer on the Secretary of State, Wash¬ 
ington, D. C., for alleged salary due said Rufus H. Thayer for the 
months of May, June, July, and August, 1911. (See letter Auditor 
for State and Other Departments, Exhibit No. 1, p. 134 thereof.) 

He, the said Rufus H. Thayer, then and there knowing the said 
accounts, vouchers, receipts, and claims to contain fraudulent and 
fictitious entries, with fraudulent design then and there to cheat and 
defraud the Government of the United States, contrary to the form 
of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace 
and dignity of the United States of America. 

NOTES ON THE LAW AND FACTS UNDER SPECIFICATION NO. 2. 

Law. —The law notes set forth under specification No. 1 are appli¬ 
cable under specification No. 2. 

Facts. —The said Rufus H. Thayer was absent from his post of 
duty in China from the 17th day of April, 1911, to the 12th day of 
October, 1911—5 months and 25 days—and from May 23, 1912, to 
October 5, 1912—4 months and 12 days—in all, 10 months and 7 days. 
In respect to the 1911 absence Mr. William J. Carr, Chief of the 
Consular Bureau, Department of State, says that the department 
received a letter from the said Mr. Thayer, dated at Shanghai, the 
7th of February, 1911, announcing his purpose to be absent from 
China from the middle of April, 1911, to the first Monday in October, 
1911. (See Exhibit No. 2, p. 2, hereto annexed.) In said letter 
Mr. Thayer says, further, that he can be absent from his post of duty 
as judge of “the United States Court for China” for six months with 
out embarrassment to the business of the court. After saying that 
he will leave for America about the middle of April and return on the 
first Monday in October, he uses these significant words, namely: 

So far as I can see now, I think that it will be possible for me to do so at that time 
without embarrassment to the business of the court. (See p. 2, Exhibit No. 2.) 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


87 


These words are significant for the reason that if there is no business 
for said court to transact for six months in the year is there any busi¬ 
ness to justify the existence of said court at all, at an expense of over 
$30,000 a year to the Treasury of the United States ? The clerk’s 
and marshal’s returns of fees in said court since its organization 
December 17, 1906, the date of its first session, to December 31, 1912, 
six years, show that, aside from alleged probate cases, which said 
court has unlawfully usurped, in violation of the very act creating 
said court, the number of cases, civil and criminal, tried does not 
average 12 a year, and of these a large number are cases against 
gamblers and prostitutes. (See pp. 38-100, Exhibit No. 1, hereto 
attached, being certified copies of accounts made by said court to 
the Auditor for the State and Other Departments.) Page after page 
of said accounts will be seen marked “No cases,” indicating no cases 
heard by the court during the quarters therein named. (See pp. 42, 
44, 59, Exhibit No. 1.) 

Although the said Thayer knew that there was but little business 
to be transacted for six months out of the year by the United States 
court for China, he well knew that at any time during his six months’ 
absence from China any citizen of the United States in China might 
be brought before the United States consular court for China for a 
preliminary hearing on a felony charge made by any irresponsible 
person, there being no grand jury recognized by said Thayer, although 
citizens are entitled to it, and held to answer by the judge of said 
consular court, who is not a lawyer, who has never studied law, and 
does not profess to know anythirg about law. 

Citizens have been so held by said consular court during the deadly 
hot summer months in Shanghai, awaiting the pleasure of the said 
Thayer’s return from Europe or America. 

The said Thayer does not ask leave of absence for six months and 
leave is not granted him. He writes: 

I have deemed it my duty to advise the department of my purpose in this regard to 
enable the President or the Secretary of State to communicate with me upon this 
subject if any communication be thought necessary. 

The said Mr. Wilbur J. Carr, of the Consular Bureau, made a state¬ 
ment in respect of said Thayer’s letter to this effect: 

The Department of State did not assume to have the authority or power to grant leave of 
absence to a judge of a United States court. 

On this subject Mr. John Bassett Moore, Acting Secretary of State, 
under date of Washington, April 26, 1913, writes as follows, namely: 

He [Mr. Thayer] did not ask for leave, and the department having doubts as to its 
jurisdiction over the movements of a judge of a United States court merely acknowl¬ 
edged his [Mr. Thayer’s] letter with the statement that “The department knows of no 
objection to your leaving Shanghai at the time mentioned.” The records do not 
show the period during which he was actually absent from Shanghai. (See pp. 27 
and 28, Exhibit No. 2, hereto attached.) 

In respect to said Thayer’s absence from his post of duty in China 
without leave granted him for nearly five months in 1912, the Acting 
Secretary of State, Mr. John Bassett Moore, under date of April 26, 
1913, writes: 

April 10, 1912, Judge Thayer wrote again, “I beg to advise you that I am leaving 
Shanghai the latter part of May for London, England, to meet Mrs. Thayer. 

I may say that my absence will substantially coincide with the summer months 
when there is little if any business before the court and that thus litigants will suffer 
the minimum amount of inconvenience. 


88 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


The department, on May 31, ]912, acknowledged receipt of this dispatch and added 
“The information contained therein has been carefully noted.” (See pp. 28 and 29, 
Exhibit No. 2, hereto annexed.) 

From the above last notice to the department of his purpose to 
leave China the latter part of May, 1912, he does not say when he will 
return, and that he again reiterates his former statement that there 
is “little if any business before the ocurt” during the time of his 
five or six months’ absence 11 and that thus litigants will suffer the 
minimum amount of inconvenience.” (See p. 28, Exhibit No. 2, 
hereto annexed.) 

The said Mr. Wilbur Carr says in respect to this last leave of Mr. 
Thayer, in 1912, the same that he said in respect of that of 1911, the. 
department did not give him leave of absence. 

In respect to the absence of the said Thayer from his post of duty 
in China during the years 1909 and 1910, the said letter of the Acting 
Secretary of State, Mr. J. Bassett Moore, makes no mention. The 
said Mr. Wilbur J. Carr, chief of the Consular Service, made a state¬ 
ment that the said Thayer gave no notice to the Department of State 
that he intended to be absent from China or had been absent there¬ 
from, and that the said department did not know that the said Thayer 
was absent from his post for 5 months and 25 days between June 18, 
1909, and the 3d of October, 1910. 

The said Thayer was absent from his post of duty, without leave 
of absence granted, from the time of his appointment and opening 
court in March, 1909, to October, 1912, about 3 years—over 16 
months—nearly 1^ years out of 3 years. 

During these 16 months of absence he made certificates that the 
salary was actually due him for services rendered, and dated said 
certificates and the receipts for salary Shanghai, China, and signed 
them under said dates, when he was not in China at all. 

The said Thayer left Shanghai, China, for San Francisco, Cal., 
April 17, 1911, on board the steamer CJiiyo Maru (North China 
Herald for Apr. 22, 1911, p. 252), and returned to Shanghai on Oc¬ 
tober 12, 1911, on the steamer Derfflinger , from Yokohama, Japan 
(North China Herald for Nov. 14, 1911, p. 122). 

In May, 1912, the said Thayer wished to leave Shanghai, and in 
fact the Republic of China, and go to England. He managed to get 
the United States to pay his personal expenses for passage about 
halfway to England and part of the way back to Shanghai. 

He secured said expenses in this way: Just at this time it was dis¬ 
covered that there was a naturalized citizen of Russian descent, a 
Russian prostitute, one Marie Schemmel, away up in Harbin, a part 
of China in Asiatic Siberia, about halfway to England from said 
Shanghai, who was charged with vagrancy—keeping a house of ill 
fame—and other offenses, to be tried. Never before nor since has the 
said United States Court for China ever had occasion to go to Harbin. 

The said Thayer left Shanghai for Dairen (Dalny) on May 13, 
1912, on board the steamship Kobe Maru (North China Herald,"May 
18, 1912, p. 509), from Dalny he continued bv rail to Harbin, 
here the said prostitute was tried by the said Thayer, and on the 
23d day of May, 1912, he left Harbin for England. (See North 
China Herald for June 1, 1912, p. 630.) 

The said Thayer returned to China from England, arriving at 
Tientsin in Northern China on or about October 5,1912. (See North 




CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


89 


China Herald for Oct. 5, 1912, p. 59.) From Tientsin the United 
States Government paid Thayer’s expenses from said Tientsin to 
Shanghai, by way of Hankow, arriving at Shanghai on the 13th day 
of October, 1912, on board the Yangtze River steamship Tuckvo. 

Summary of amount of salary due and paid said Thayer from the 1st day of April , 1911 to 
the 30th day of October, 1911, and from the 1st day of May, 1912, to the 5th day of October, 
1912, the amount of salary overpaid on false salary vouchers during said periods to¬ 
gether with the total amount set forth on the face of the said false vouchers. 


■Said Thayer outside of China without leave from 17th day of Apr., 1911, to 
12 th day of Oct., 1911, 5 months and 25 days; 23d day of May, 1912,’ to 
5th day of Oct., 1912, 4 months and 12 days; total absence without leave, 

1911 and 1912, 10 months and 7 days: 

Salary per annum. $ 8 ,000. 00 

Salary per month. 666 . 66 

Salary per day.. 22. 22 


10 months’ salary, at $ 666.66 ... 6 , 666 . 60 

7 days’ salary, at $22.22. ’ 155 . 54 


Total salary overpaid during 1911 and 1912.. 6 , 822.14 


17 days in China in April, 1911, at $ 22.22 . 377 . 74 

18 days in China in October, 1911, at $ 22.22 . 399 . 96 

23 days in China in May, 1912, at $ 22.22 . 511. 06 

25 days in China in October, 1912, at $ 22.22 . 555 . 50 


Salary due while in China during April and October, 1911, and dur¬ 
ing May and October, 1912. 1 , 844. 26 


Total amount on face of said false vouchers for salary during said 

months of 1911 and 1912. 8 , 666 . 40 


Specification No. 3. 

That the said Rufus H. Tha} r er, in said Shanghai, in the Republic 
of China, on, to wit, the 31st day of March, 1910, did knowingly, 
willfully, and unlawfully make and present and cause to be made and 
presented for payment and approval to the Auditor for the State and 
Other Departments, and to the Treasurer of the United States, at 
Washington, D. C., the said auditor and the said Treasurer being 
then and there persons and officers in the civil service of the United 
States, a certain false, fictitious, and fraudulent account, bill, and 
receipt against the Government of the United States, to wit, an 
account, bill, and receipt for payment and reimbursement to him, 
said Rufus H. Thayer, of certain alleged actual and necessary per¬ 
sonal expenses on circuit to Canton, China, from March 4 to 29, 1910, 
26 days, amounting to SI94.94, lawful money of the United States, 
in words and figures set forth on pages 128, 129, 130, 131, and 132 of 
Exhibit No. 1, hereto attached and made part hereof, whereas in 
truth and in fact, while the law creating said United States Court for 
China requires said court to hold a session once a year in said Canton, 
there was no business requiring the presence of the court there in 
March, 1910, and the said court actually remained in said Canton 
only from the morning of the 9th to the evening of the 11th March, 
1910—two and one-half days. 

The said Thayer could readily have returned to Shanghai, China, 
by the 15th day of March, 1910, instead of which he went to the 
British colony of Hongkong, arriving there on the morning of the 12th 




















90 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


of March, 1910, where, instead of taking a ship for Shanghai, he 
remained over to the 26th of March, 1910, two weeks. That said 
Thayer had no appointment to an office in said British colony of 
Hongkong and had no judicial authority to exercise or judicial duties 
of any nature whatever to perform there, and his absence of two 
weeks without leave from his post of duty in Shanghai or elsewhere 
in China, and the charging of his personal expenses in said Hong¬ 
kong from the 12th to the 26th of March, 1910, to the United States, 
as actual and necessary expenses, was unlawful, and said accounts, 
bills, and receipts setting forth same are false, fictitious, and fraudu¬ 
lent. The said Thayer attempts to explain his stay in Hongkong in 
a letter dated Shanghai, China, October 15, 1910, sent to the said 
Auditor for the State and Other Departments, and further seeks by 
said letter to obtain the payment and approval of said Hongkong 
expenses, payment of which bad been suspended by the said auditor. 
Said letter is also false, fictitious, and fraudulent, a certified copy of 
which is set forth on pages 125, 126, and 127 of Exhibit No. 1, hereto 
attached and made a part hereof. 

He, the said Rufus H. Thayer, then and there knowing the said 
account, bill, letter, and receipt to contain fraudulent and fictitious 
entries, with fraudulent design then and there to cheat and defraud 
the Government of the United States, contrary to the form of the 
statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and 
dignity of the United States. 

NOTES ON THE LAW AND FACTS UNDER SPECIFICATION NO. 3. 

Law. —The law notes set forth under specification No. 1 are 
applicable under specification No. 3. 

Facts. —By the first section of the act creating said United States 
Court for China it was provided that a session of the court shall be 
held in Canton, Tientsin, and Hankow at least once annually. 

During the month of March, 1910, there was not a case to be tried, 
nor a motion nor other business to be heard nor any business requir¬ 
ing the presence of the United States Court in Canton, China. Not¬ 
withstanding this fact the said Rufus H. Thayer, under the said sec¬ 
tion of act creating said court requiring at least one annual session of 
court to be held in Canton, left Shanghai, China, on March 4, 1910, for 
Canton on the palatial trans-Pacific steamship Manchuria , and 
arrived at Hongkong on the morning of the 7th of March, 1910. 
The said R. H. Thayer, as well as the officers of the said court, were 
accompanied by their wives and a party of friends, the respective 
ladies of the party having their native maid servants. This was a 
pleasure party, on a pleasure voyage, on a palatial ship, with not a 
bit of work for any member of the court, of which the said judge and 
each officer of the court was well aware. 

Instead of proceeding on his way to Canton the evening of his 
arrival at Hongkong, which he readily could have done by taking 
the evening boat, he remained in Hongkong at the Hongkong Hotel 
until the evening of the 8th of March, 1910, when he took the even¬ 
ing boat for Canton, where he, with the entire party, the officers 
of the court, their wives, friends, and maid servants, arrived the next 
morning, the 9th of March, 1910. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


91 


Not having any court business, the party did the usual visitors' 
sight-seeing of this wonderful Chinese city, the usual shopping, and 
remained until the evening of the 11th of March, 1910, for this pur¬ 
pose, two and a half days, when the entire party, the judge and 
all, returned to Hongkong, where they arrived the next morning, 
the 12th of March, 1910. 

Having complied with the law in holding a session of court at 
Canton at least once annually, though there was no business for the 
court to transact there, and not likely to be any there for the court 
to transact at any time, as there are not half a dozen American 
business firms or merchants in Canton, and having returned to 
Hongkong on their way back to Shanghai, on the morning of the 
12th of March, 1910, it was incumbent upon the court to take the 
next boat back to Shanghai. 

Instead of leaving Hongkong for Shanghai on the evening of Sat¬ 
urday, the 12th of March, 1910, having arrived from Canton about 
8 o'clock a. m. of that day, or instead of leaving the next morning 
by the steamship CJiinhua, a first-class schedule twin-screw steamer 
of the China Navigation Co. (Ltd.) Line, for Shanghai, or instead of 
leaving on the 14th day of March on the steamship Polynesien of 
Messageries Maritimes Line, the French mail steamer which sailed 
from Hongkong for Shanghai on the 14th day of March, 1910, the 
said Rufus H. Thayer remained in Hongkong until the 26th day of 
March, 1910, before beginning the continuation of his return voyage 
t Shanghai from Canton. 

Hongkong being a British colony and the said Rufus H. Thayer as 
judge of the United States Court for China having no jurisdiction 
therein, it is respectfully submitted his stay in Hongkong from the 
morning of the 12th to the morning of the 26th March, 1910, two 
weeks, with all his expenses charged the Government of the United 
States, when he and his party sailed on the steamship Chiyo Maru of 
the Japanese Line Toyo Kaisha Kasha Co. for Shanghai, were unlaw¬ 
ful and his claims for expenses false. It is also worthy of note to 
mention that the said Rufus H. Thayer's name does not appear in 
the public press as a registered guest at the said Hongkong Hotel. 

The bill of said Rufus H. Thayer from the Hongkong Hotel for 
March, 1910, which is claimed to be false, shows on the face of it that 
he was not at all the dates therein named a guest of said hotel. That 
the charges from the evening of the 12th of March, 1910, to the morn¬ 
ing of the 26th of March, 1910, are false charges and claims for money 
against the United States for the reason above stated, that there was 
no legitimate reason for the said Rufus H. Thayer to remain for said 
time, namely, two weeks, in Hongkong, a British settlement, and 
charge the United States for his hotel expenses, at the same time re¬ 
maining away from China, his post of duty, for that length of time 
without leave of absence. 

It was generally known on the Asiatic coast in February, 1910, that 
the Hamburg American Line excursion steamship Cleveland , with 
some 800 American tourists on a round-the-world trip would reach 
Hongkong about the middle of March, 1910. 

The said Rufus H. Thayer planned his trip to reach Hongkong on 
his way back to Shanghai to meet these tourists and did so, returning 
to Hongkong on the 12th of March, 1910. Three days later the ex¬ 
cursion steamer Cleveland came into the port of Hongkong. 


92 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


Upon being requested by the Auditor for the State and Other De¬ 
partments to explain his account for expenses in Hongkong, which 
account had been suspended, the said Kufus H. Thayer wrote a long 
letter, under date of October 15, 1910, to the district attorney of his 
court who had been the clerk and disbursing officer of the court at 
the time of the Hongkong visit, in which statement, intended as an ex¬ 
planation for the said auditor, appears the remarkable assertion that 
the said Thayer had remained in Hongkong, 90 miles away from 
Oanton, on rumor that there would be possible danger to the tourists 
who visited that city, while the district attorney and stenographer of 
oourt had already returned to Shanghai. 

Mr. Thayer, by this letter, sought to create the impression that Con¬ 
gress had conferred on him diplomatic duties in a British colony, or 
consular duties, hence his stay there which, of course, on its face, 
condemns it. 

The said letter also contains a false statement that he, the said 
Thayer, had waited over one steamer, at which time the incident was 
over and fortunately without any undue event. As a matter of fact, 
over six first-class steamers left Hongkong for Shanghai, between 
the 12th and 26th of March, 1910, which he, the said Thayer, could 
have taken in continuation of his voyage; furthermore the said Thayer 
did not then return by the Pacific Mail Line, over which he bought 
a round-trip ticket at the expense of the Government. 

The said bill of the Hongkong Hotel, the said letter of the said 
Thayer in explanation of his long stay in Hongkong, and the letter 
of the auditor suspending said account, together with other docu¬ 
ments, are hereto annexed, under seal of the Treasury Department. 
(See pp. 116 to 132 of Exhibit No. 1, hereto annexed.) 

This charge that the said Thayer did make a false claim for money, 
knowing it to be false, is not as serious as other charges hereinafter 
set forth, and is made at this time in order that his attempted explana¬ 
tion, false on its face, as well as absurd, may be used to show the 
caliber of the man and the extent he will go to justify himself. 

This trip of Thayer and the officers of the court cost the Govern¬ 
ment about $2,000 gold, for the reason that the said Thayer was out 
of the jurisdiction of China and the business of the court there was at 
a standstill and all court expenses going on. 

■Summary of said Thayer's personal expenses on circuit to Canton, China, lawfully due 
him in March, 1910, and of those expenses claimed and paid on false voucher and cer¬ 
tificate during said month on said circuit, together with amount unlawfully claimed as 
salary for said month, while said Thayer remained, without leave of absence granted him 
mid without knowledge of any Government officials in the United States, in the British 
■colony of Hongkong for 14 days, on pleasure bent , outside of the jurisdiction of said 
United States Court for China. 

The actual time taken by said Thayer making the round-trip voyage between Shanghai 
and Canton was 7 days; actual time he spent in Canton was 2J days; ample time to 
change boats in Hongkong each way en route, days: 

Total expenses due for 12 days, at $10 gold a day. $120. 00 

Total amount paid on face of false voucher. $194. 94 

Amount overpaid on false voucher. 74. 94 

.Salary on false voucher for March, 1910, for 14 days, at $22.22.. 311. 08 

Total amount overcharged the Government for personal expenses on 
said circuit and for salary for March, 1910, without leave of absence 
granted to spend said 14 days in Hongkong. $386. 08 






CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 93 

The said false voucher makes claim for 26 days, March 4 to 29,. 
1910, while as a matter of fact only 12 days were actually taken by 
said court to transact the business and make the round trip, the 
remaining 14 days being spent in Hongkong, during which time he 
charged his hotel expenses to the Government, and received $22.22 
a day for each of the said 14 days, as salary. 

Instead of saving the Government the sum of $65.06 as alleged in 
the said false voucher (see Exhibit No. 1, p. 129) the Government 
was overcharged the sum of $74.94 for expenses and the further sum 
of $311.08 for salary during said 14 days which he unnecessarily over¬ 
stayed in Hongkong. 

Summary of amounts of money unlaufully demanded and paid on false vouchers for salary 
'und expenses on circuit, not including a pleasure trip at the Government's expense to 
Manila, between the 15th day of March , 1909, when said Thayer first arrived in Shanghai , 
China, and the 5th day of October, 1912—3 years 6 months and 20 days. 

Total time absent from his post of duty, during which he was outside of 
China, without leave of absence granted, 16 months and 16 days, includ¬ 
ing two weeks’ stay in Hongkong, nearly half of the time since his 
appointment and arrival in China: 

Total amount demanded unlawfully, in violation of section 35 of the 
United States Criminal Code, on false vouchers for salary during 


said absence.. $11, 022.18 

Same on false vouchers for expenses on circuit to Canton (1910)..... 74. 94 


Aggregate of amount paid not due on false vouchers. 11, 097.12 

Aggregate of amount on face of false vouchers (including salary for March, 

1910, and Hongkong expenses for that month). 14, 861.10 


Specification No. 4. 

The said Rufus H. Thayer, in said Shanghai, in the Republic of 
China, on and between, to wit, the 30th of September, 1911, and 
the 29th of June, 1912, did knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully make 
and present, and cause to be made and presented, for payment and 
approval to the Auditor for the State and Other Departments and to 
the Treasurer of the United States, at Washington, D. C., the said 
auditor and the said Treasurer, being then and there persons and 
officers in the civil service of the United States, four certain false, 
fictitious, and fraudulent vouchers against the Government of the 
United States, to wit, four vouchers for payment and reimbursement 
to him, said Rufus H. Thayer, through his agent, one Chinese named 
Wong Sung Dong, compradore of the United States court for China, 
of certain alleged rent of building No. 12 Whangpoo Road, in said 
Shanghai, which is alleged by said Thayer on said vouchers to be 
devoted solely to the business of said court, from the 1st of August, 
1911, to the 30th of June, 1912, 11 months, and purporting on their 
face to be for rent of said building for the quarters ending September 
30, 1911; December 31, 1911; March 30, 1912; and June 29, 1912, 
amounting on their face to $2,137.75 lawful money of the United 
States. 

Said vouchers are marked, respectively, to wit: “Original voucher 
No. 703”; “Original voucher, No. 779”; “Original voucher, No. 
864”; and “Original voucher, No. 928,” and are in words and 
figures set forth on pages Nos. 30, 31, 32, and 33, Exhibit No. 1, 
hereto attached and made a part hereof, whereas, in truth and in 








94 


CHANGES AGAINST RUFUS II. THAYER. 


fact, the said building is not devoted solely to the business of said 
court, but is devoted in part to the use of the said Rufus H. Thayer, 
to D. A. Wilson, jr., and J. B. Davies, respectively the judge, mar¬ 
shal, and clerk of said court for residential purposes. Further, that 
the respective sums set forth in said vouchers as the actual rent of 
said building is not the true rent thereof, as the said Rufus H. Thayer 
well knows; that the said building is leased from the China Realty 
Co. (Ltd.) by Amos P. Wilder, consul general of the United States 
at said Shanghai in his private, personal capacity at a rental of 
taels 200 a month (ol taels 2,400 a year; see p. 34, Exhibit 1), equiva¬ 
lent, at exchange $0.60, to $120 lawful money of the United States a 
month (or $1,440 a year), and that said Rufus H. Thayer charges 
the Government of the United States $200 lawful money of the 
United States a month (or $2,400 a year; see p. 17, Exhibit No. 2) 
foi said building. 

He, the said Rufus H. Thayer, then and there knowing the said 
four vouchers to contain fraudulent and fictitious entries, with 
fraudulent design, then and there to cheat and defraud the Govern¬ 
ment of the United States, contrary to the form of the statute in 
such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of 
the United States. 

NOTES ON THE LAW AND FACTS UNDER SPECIFICATION NO. 4. 

Law. —In addition to the law notes under specification No. 1, 
which are applicable under specification No. 4, it will be seen by 
reading sections 3678 and 3743 of the Revised Statutes that they 
had not been complied with by the disbursing and financial officer of 
the Department of State, assuming, arguendo, that said officer, 
instead of the Department of Justice, had jurisdiction, whose duty 
we will assume it was to examine such accounts, and for that reason 
the Auditor for the State and other Departments could not properly 
pass upon said account, as he did not have the contracts before him 
under which the vouchers for rent were drawn and sent to him for 
approval. 

Further, it will be seen by section 1706, Revised Statutes, and 
section 544 of the Consular Regulations for 1896, which have the 
force of law, that consuls shall be allowed expenses for office rent 
not to exceed 20 per cent ot the amount of annual compensation 
allowed to such officer. 

The compensation of Consul Wilder is $8,000 a year, yet in violation 
of said section 1706, Revised Statutes, and said section 544 of the 
Consular Regulations, he knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully made 
a lease with the China Realty Co., whereby he sought to bind the 
United States Treasury to pay the sum of $5,812, lawful money of 
the United States, or 8,400 taels. (See pp. 7-13, and 34, Exhibit 
No. 2, hereto annexed.) 

In direct violation of said said sections 1706 and 3678, Revised 
Statutes, the said Amos P. Wilder, consul general at Shanghai, after 
entering into said lease with the said China Realty Co. (see pp. 7-13 
of Exhibit No. 2, hereto annexed), conspired with the said Rufus 
H. Thayer and one John M. Darrah, United States postal agent at 
Shanghai, to pay in part the rent under said lease for certain of said 
houses named in said lease and to pay more than the market value 
of said houses and more than the said Amos P. Wilder agreed to pay 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


95 


for same under said lease. To make up part of the balance due for 
rent under said lease, the said Amos P. Wilder unlawfully diverted 
the sum of $100 a month, or $1,200, lawful money of the United 
States annually appropriated by Congress for a jail, for a part of one 
of said houses, to wit, No. 15 Whangpoo Road, for a jail for American 
prisoners, the whole of said house at a market value renting at 
taels 75—at exchange .60, equivalent to $45—a month. He in¬ 
humanely and unlawfully used the upper floors and attic of said 
building for a jail, even in the hottest, deadliest of the humid, torrid 
summer weather, when Asiatic cholera was rampant in Shanghai, 
without having even a yard or a place out of doors for prisoners to 
exercise. 

A large suitable building with suitable grounds for exercise and 
fresh air could readily have been rented in Shanghai for $100 lawful 
money of the United States a month, equivalent at exchange .60 
to Shanghai taels 166.66, a month. 

In furtherance of said conspiracy, the said John M. Darrah agreed 
in writing (see pp. 14, 15 of Exhibit No. 2) to pay the sum of $600 
gold a year for the rent of the entire building No. 16 Whangpoo 
Road and the ground floor of No. 15 Whangpoo Road, the said $600 
being the entire amount allowed by the Post Office Department for 
the rent of suitable offices for the said postal agent in Shanghai. 

Instead of using the entire building No. 16 Whangpoo Road for 
the business of the said postal agency the said John M. Darrah, only 
uses the ground floor thereof, together with the ground floor of said 
No. 15 Whangpoo Road, for the business of the postal agency, and 
uses the remainder of the rooms of said building No. 16 Whangpoo 
Road, to wit, the entire second and third floors and the attic thereof, 
for the sole purpose of a residence for himself and family. 

In presenting the bills, vouchers, and receipts for rent of said postal 
agency for payment and approval to the Auditor for the Post Office 
Department, alleging in said bills and vouchers that the rooms in 
said Nos. 15 and 16 Whangpoo Road are devoted solely to the busi¬ 
ness of the said postal agency, the said John M. Darrah not only vio¬ 
lates section 35 of the Criminal Code of the United States, and thus 
renders himself liable to an indictment in the District of Columbia 
under said section of the Criminal Code, but by sending said bills and 
vouchers to the Auditor for the Post Office Department with the 
quarterly detailed statement of vouchers required by that depart¬ 
ment, under an affidavit that said bills and vouchers are true and 
correct, and that the expenditures were necessary and proper, he 
knowingly and willfully committed perjury and rendered himself 
liable to be indicted therefor. 

The said John M. Darrah has regularly every quarter since Sep¬ 
tember 30, 1909, to June 30, 1912, committed perjury in making his 
quarterly statement to the Auditor for the Post Office Department, 
in that he has falsely sworn that the premises paid for by the United 
States, for the postal agency in said Shanghai, were used solely for 
the business of that department, when as a matter of fact the greater 
part of said premises was used by said John M. Darrah for residential 
purposes. 

Since September 30, 1911, he has regularly every quarter violated 
section 35 of the United States Criminal Code, in that he has know- 


96 CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 

ingly made and presented, and caused to be made and presented, 
false and fictitious claims against the Government of the United 
States, for rent for said postal agency, charging about twice the 
actual rent for the offices used for the said agency. 

The said Rufus H. Thayer furthered the said conspiracy m that 
he authorized D. A. Wilson, jr., marshal and disbursing officer of 
said United States court for China, to enter into an agreement in 
writing (see pp. 17—18, Exhibit No. 2) whereby it was sought to bind 
the said court to pay an annual rental of $2,400, lawful money of the 
United States, for the said house No. 12 Whangpoo Road, knowing 
the actual market value of said rent to be only $90 gold a month, 
or $1,080 gold annually, and further knowing that the said Amos P. 
Wilder had leased said house at the rate of taels 200 a month, equiv¬ 
alent at exchange $0.60 to $120 gold a month, or $1,440 gold annually, 
or $360 gold more than the said market value of said rent. 

By agreeing to pay $2,400 gold annually for said house the said 
Thayer knowingly and unlawfully agrees to pay said Amos P.Wilder 
$960 gold annually more than tire said Wilder pays for same, as is 
shown by the municipal tax receipts. 

Having shown that the said Amos P. Wilder had conspired with 
the said John M. Darrah and the said Rufus H. Thayer, to unlaw¬ 
fully use Government funds to pay more than said buildings were 
actually rented for by said Wilder, to wit, $600 annually for No. 16 
and ground floor of No. 15 Whangpoo Road, $1,200 unlawfully 
diverted annually from jail appropriation to pay for part of said 
No. 15 Whangpoo Road, and $2,400 annually for No. 12 Whangpoo 
Road for said court, making a total of $4,200 gold, it remains to 
show one of the motives of the said Amos P. Wilder in securing the 
two remaining houses under said lease, to wit, Nos. 13 and 14 Whang¬ 
poo Road. These two houses he gets for $840 gold annually, or 
$420 gold each, according to rate of exchange, being at the rate of 
$120 gold a year less than the actual market rent. 

Having diverted funds appropriated solely for other purposes, he 
secures this reduction of rent for said two houses, Nos. 13 and 14 
Whangpoo Road, and then the consular officials use part of said houses 
as living quarters, at much below the actual market value, even this 
reduced rent not being paid. 

One Frank W. Hadley, occupying the third floor of No. 14 Whangpoo 
Road for residential purposes for himself and wife, for which one 
W. Roderick Dorsey, vice consul general at Shanghai, falsely repre¬ 
sents to the Secretary of State under date of Shanghai, March 16, 1912, 
the rental value to be $75 gold a year. (See p. 26 of Exhibit No. 2.) 
There are three rooms on said third floor occupied by said Hadley. 
(See p. 24 of Exhibit No. 2.) This makes the monthly rental of the 
said three rooms $6.25 a month, or $2.08 gold each a month. 

There is not an American in Shanghai who would not say that such 
a valuation for rent of rooms on the third floor of No. 14 Whangpoo 
Road is false. The electric light and fans alone used by said Hadley 
would cost more than that a month. 

One George C. Hansen, vice consul occupies rooms in No. 13 
Whangpoo Road, and these the said Dorsey falsely represents as 
valued at $40 gold a year, or $3.33 a month, or $1.66 each room a 
month with electric light. 




CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


97 

The fact that even these amounts have not been paid and no returns 
of room rent made to the Auditor for the State and Other Depart¬ 
ments is worthy of note in connection with the said conspiracy. 

Assuming arguendo that the said Amos P. Wilder merely wished 
to evade section 1706, Revised Statutes, and section 544, Consular 
Regulations, he must have done so knowingly in violation of section 
3678, Revised Statutes. No reason can be assigned for diverting 
the sum of $1,200, appropriated by Congress for the sole purpose of 
paying for the rent of a suitable building for a jail in China for Amer¬ 
ican prisoners, and by so diverting this sum of $1,200 help to reduce 
the rent of a consulate which an act of Congress, section 1706, Revised 
Statutes, says shall not exceed 20 per cent of the consul's compensa¬ 
tion—this diverting of said sum at the risk of seriously endangering 
the health, if not the life, of Americans held as prisoners in said 
attic of said No. 15 Whangpoo Road during the exceedingly hot and 
almost unbearable summer season in Shanghai, with no place for 
said prisoners to exercise. But as said Thayer and Wilder are absent 
from China five or six months a year on pay, prisoners’ health is a 
subject of no importance to them. 

No reason can be assigned for inducing the said Darrah to pay $60(J 
a year for the ground floor of Nos. 15 and 16 Whangpoo Road, when 
that amount is appropriated for post office solely, and being a party 
to the false returns and perjured affidavits of said Darrah to the Aud¬ 
itor for the Post Office Department. The said affidavits were made 
before consular officers, bear the seal of the consulate, and the said 
officers knew that said No. 16 Whangpoo Road was not devoted 
solely to the business of the United States postal agency at Shanghai, 
as said Darrah falsely swore that it was so solely devoted. 

No reason can be assigned for charging the United States court for 
China the sum of $2,400 gold a year when the assessed rent of said 
building, as shown by the municipal tax receipts, was only taels 2,400 
a year, or $1,440 a year. (See pp. 35, 36, 37 of Exhibit No. 1, hereto 
annexed.) 

Every American in Shanghai who has occasion to go to the United 
States postal agency there knows that it is in a row of buildings, each 
building identical to the other; that buildings Nos. 16, 15, 14, and 13 
Whangpoo Road are in this said row; that they are identically alike, 
each to the other; that said Americans or any sane person in Shanghai 
would say that it is false to represent that No. 16 and the ground floor 
of No. 15 Whangpoo Road is worth $600 a year; that the second, 
third, and attic floors of No. 15 Whangpoo Road are $1,200 a year; 

>T s. 14 and 13 Whangpoo Road each rent only for $420 a 
Jo. 12 Whangpoo Road is worth $2,400 a year all lawful 
i ’ tie United States. 

ind absurd as these representations are, made by the said 
ilder under date of Shanghai, December 22, 1911 (see 
libit No. 2), he makes them with impunity to the Secre- 
e at Washington, some 10,000 miles away, knowing that 
tJtiere is no postal inspector of the United States in China, ancl that 
the said Darrah and the said consular officials, notwithstanding that 
they may violate the criminal laws, have the protection of the said 
Rufus H. Thayer as judge of the said United States Court for China 
(see specification 6), with whom the said Wilder conspired as afore¬ 
said. 


9997—13-7 




98 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


The said Thayer knew said acts were in violation of section 3678, 
United States Revised Statutes. This section provides that: 

All sums appropriated for the various branches of expenditure in the public service 
shall be applied solely to the objects for which they are respectively made, and for 
no others. 

That the said Rufus H. Thayer from the 1st day of August, 1911, 
to the 1st day of May, 1913, one year and nine months, lias caused 
to be paid from the annual appropriation of $2,400 gold a year for 
rent of building for court the sum of $80 gold a month more than the 
said Amos P. Wilder, United States consul general, alleges in writing 
under seal that he Wilder pays for it, making the total sum overpaid 
for said one year and nine months $1,680 gold. 

That said Rufus H. Thayer well knowing that the actual rent paid 
for said building, No. 12 \. hangpo Road, Shanghai, is only taels 200, 
equivalent, at exchange $0.60, to $120 gold, or $1,440 gold a year, pays 
the sum of $2,400 gold a year, or $960 a year more than the rent due, 
and at the same time falsely represents to the Congress of the United 
States, through the Department of State, that the rent for said court 
building is $2,400 gold a year. 

Further, the said Rufus H. Thayer authorized the sending of 
vouchers for rent of said building for court to the Auditor for State 
and Other Departments, which vouchers contain the false statement 
that the rooms in said building are devoted solely to the business of 
the said United States Court for China, the said Thayer well know¬ 
ing that he himself uses part of said building for residential purposes, 
including use of the electric lights, coal, and electric fans, and servants, 
all paid by the Government, ostensibly for court purposes, but really 
in part for residential purposes of said Thayer and others. 

In violation of said section 3678, Revised Statutes, by said Thayer 
and said Amos P. Wilder, the sum of $2,064 gold is diverted annually 
from the purposes and objects for which Congress solely appropriates 
it, to wit, $25 a month out of post-office appropriation, $300 a year; 
$67 a month out of jail-rent appropriation, $804 a year; $80 a month 
out of court-rent appropriation, $960 a year; and false returns are 
made to the Auditor for State and Other Departments to mislead as 
to this unlawful diversion of public funds. (See interpretation of 
sec. 3678, Rev. Stat., by Attorney General, 18 Op. Atty. Gen., 463.) 

The said Auditor for the State and Other Departments was unable 
to discover the said violation of said section 3678, Revised Statutes, 
for the reason that the officer of the Department of State who received 
these said leases from said Wilder overlooked section 3743, Revised 
Statutes, in that he withheld or failed to send same to the said 
auditor. 

Further, the said officer of the Department of State failed either to 
carefully examine said leases and agreements between the said 
Wilder and the United States Court for China, or, examining them, 
failed to notify said Wilder and Thayer that said documents were in 
violation of said section 3678. 

At any rate the said leases and agreements were held at the Depart¬ 
ment of State until certified copies of them were asked for by Hon. 
William Hughes, United States Senator from New Jersey. 

When said certified copies of said leases were exhibited to said 
auditor’s office said office advised that said leases and agreements 
were in violation of said section 3678 and that the withholding of 
them at the Department of State instead of promptly depositing 



CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


99 


them in the office of said auditor was in violation of section 3743, 
Revised Statutes, which requires that: 

All contracts to be made, by virtue of any law, and requiring the advance of money, 
or m any manner connected with the settlement of public accounts, shall be deposited 
promptly in the offices of the auditors of the Treasury, according to the nature of the 
contracts. (As amended by the Dockery Act of July 31, 1894, 28 Stat. L., 

Section 1706, Revised Statutes, provides as follows: 

The President may allow consuls general, consuls, and commercial agents, who are 
not allowed to trade, actual expenses of office rent, not to exceed, in any case, 20 
per centum of the amount of the annual compensation allowed to such officer when¬ 
ever he shall think there is sufficient reason therefor. 

The annual compensation of said Amos P. Wilder is $8,000 a year. 
Twenty per cent thereof would be $1,600. 

By said section 1706, Revised Statutes, said Wilder is limited to 
expenses of office rent for the consulate, yet under the said contract 
with the said China Realty Co. he undertakes to pay yearly the sum 
of 8,400 taels—equivalent at exchange 60 to $5,040, lawful money 
of the United States—$3,440 more than is allowed under said section 
1706. 

It can not be seriously contended that said Wilder as consul general 
had authority to contract for a United States postal agency, yet he 
undertakes to do so, but fails to send his contract to the Auditor for 
the Post Office. 

Neither can it seriously be contended that he had authority to 
contract for the rent of a building for the United States Court for 
China, yet he undertakes to do so, but fails to send a copy of the con¬ 
tract to the Auditor for the State Department. 

The said contract with the said China Realty Co. was not author¬ 
ized by the Department of State and could not have been authorized 
by that department for the reason that it has no jurisdiction or 
authority in relation to post offices or agencies, these being under the 
Post Office Department; for the further reason, that Congress by 
section 1706, Revised Statutes, has limited the expenses of office 
rent, and by section 3678, Revised Statutes, has made it mandatory 
that: 

All sums appropriated for the various branches of expenditure in the public service 
shall be applied solely to the objects for which they are respectively made, and for no 
others. 

In open defiance of this act of Congress the said Wilder unlawfully 
diverts $58 a month from the appropriation made for rent of a jail, 
and in conspiracy with said John M. Darrah and Rufus H. Thayer 
the said Darrah diverts to his own use $25 a month, to wit, to rent of 
rooms in building No. 16 Whangpoo Road for private residential 
purposes, paying the whole amount allowed for said postal agency, 
namely, $50 a month, to said Wilder for said building, while the said 
Thayer diverts $80 a month more for the rent of building No. 12 
Whangpoo Road than the municipal tax receipts show the assessed 
rental value of that building, paying said amount under the said con¬ 
tract made by D. A. Wilson, jr., marshal and disbursing officer of said 
United States court for China, with the said Wilder, by said Thayer’s 
direction. (See pp. 17 and 18 of Exhibit No. 2, hereto attached.) 

The act making appropriations for the diplomatic and consular 
service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1912, provides, under the 


100 CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 

head of “ Expenses of prisons for American convicts, 1912,” 
follows: 

Actual expense of renting a prison at Shanghai for American convicts in China, 
$1,200; for contingent expenses, $1,200; for the wages of keeper of such prison, $1,200; 
and for the wages of an assistant keeper of such prison, $800; in all, $4,400. (See p. 
56 of Digest of Appropriations, 1912.) 

From the above appropriation it will be seen that Congress intended 
that ample provisions should be made for prison rent and expenses 
in China, which intention is defeated by said Wilder employing a 
cheap Sikh Indian watchman at $15 a month and diverting the 
balance appropriated by Congress, and in confining prisoners in the 
upper rooms and attic of said No. 15 Whangpoo Road, the rent of 
the entire building being not more than 75 taels a month equivalent 
at exchange .60 to $45. The lower floor of said building being 
rented by said Wilder to the said John M. Darrah as part of the 
said postal agency, the market rental value of said ground floor 
unfurnished and without electric light, heat, water, or taxes being 
about 20 taels which at exchange .60 is equivalent to $12. 

It follows, therefore, that the rent of said upper rooms of said No. 
15 Whanpoo Road, used as a jail by said Wilder, is valued at $33 
a month; that in charging the Government $100 therefor he over¬ 
charges $67, in consequence of which unlawful diversion of this 
appropriation prisoners held for trial, as well as convicts, do not have 
the prison accommodations contemplated by law, no provision what¬ 
ever being made by said Wilder for a prison yard where fresh air and 
exercise, so necessary in the Shanghai summer to maintain, health, 
may be had. 




Summary of rents, actual value, and amount overcharged the United States. 
House No. 16 Whanpoo Road (post office), part unlawfully used for resi¬ 


dential purposes: 

Actual rent $45 per month, 12 months. $540 

Yearly amount actually paid. $600 

House No. 15 Whanpoo Road (jail): 

Actual rent $45 per month, 12 months. 540 

Yearly amount actually paid. l } 200 

House No. 12 Whanpoo Road (United States Consular Court), part unlaw¬ 
fully used for residential purposes: 

Actual rent $120 per month, 12 months. 1,440 

Yearly rent actually paid. 2,400 

House No. 13 Whanpoo Road (consulate), part unlawfully used for resi¬ 
dential purposes: 

Actual rent $35 per month, 12 months. 420 

Yearly amount actually paid. 420 

House No. 14 Whanpoo Road (consulate), part unlawfully used for resi¬ 
dential purposes: 

Actual rent $35 per month. 12 months. 420 

Yearly amount actually paid. 420 


Actual yearly rent. 3 360 

Yearly amount paid. 5 040 

Actual yearly rent overpaid. l’680 

House No. 16 Whanpoo Road, difference overpaid, $5 per month, 12 months 
(not including rent of basement of No. 15 Whanpoo Road, which basement 

was included with the occupation of No. 16 Whanpoo Road). 60 

House No. 15 Whanpoo Road, difference overpaid, $55 per month, 12 months 

(including only the second and third floors and attic of No. 15). 660 

House No. 12 Whanpoo Road, difference overpaid, $80 per month, 12 months. 960 

Total amount overpaid yearly by the Government since Aug. 1, 1911... 1, 680 























CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


101 


As seen above, Nos. 13 and 14 Whanpoo Road were used as the 
consulate buildings, the rent of these two buildings being $840, or 
$420 each yearly. As the consul general was entitled to expend 
$1,600 yearly for consular offices, this amount being 20 per cent of 
his salary, had he spent the full amount instead of the $840 there 
remains the sum of $920 unaccounted for yearly in actual rental value. 
(See Rev. Stats., 1706.) 


Specification No. 5. 

That the said Rufus H. Thayer, at Shanghai, in the Republic of 
China, to wit, on the 31st day of May, 1910, being then and there 
judge of the United States Court for China, one Frank W. Hadley, 
United States vice consul and judge of the United States Consular 
Court at said Shanghai, though not a lawyer, nor a student of law 
and never having been admitted to practice law in any State or 
Territory of the United States or elsewnere, issued, upon the request 
of an alleged Chinese tailor, at the instigation of a notorious procuress, 
white slaver and keeper of a house of prostitution in said Shanghai, a 
warrant for the arrest of Miss S. Fisher, on the false charge that said 
Miss Fisher owed said alleged tailor the sum of $235 Mexican 
(equivalent to $117.50 lawful money of the United States), and that 
the said Miss Fisher was about to leave the jurisdiction of said con¬ 
sular court with the intent of evading payment of said claim, whereas 
in truth and in fact the said Miss Fisher did not owe said tailor any 
money whatever; that said Miss Fisher was placed under arrest by 
one T. C. White, marshal of said court, who forcibly took her from 
the Palace Hotel, Shanghai, to the consular jail and held her a 
prisoner there. That said Miss S. Fisher had been lured into said 
house of prostitution by said procuress a few days before said warrant 
of arrest was issued, and wishing to leave said house of prostitution 
and return to her home in San Francisco, Cal., she bought a ticket for 
that port and was to sail the same day, 31st May, 1910. 

The object of issuing of said warrant of arrest was to thoroughly 
demoralize said Miss Fisher, make her miss her ship home, make her 
notorious, put her to expense, cause her to spend the little money 
she had and so compel her to return to said house of prostitution, 
and to said life of shame. 

The above facts were well known to said Frank W. Hadley and 
to the said Fufus H. Thayer. 

The said Miss S. Fisher, through an attorney, immediately after 
her arrest, petitioned the said Rufus H. Thayer as judge of the 
United States Court for China for a writ of habeas corpus, to issue 
to the said T. C. White, marshal of the said consular court, and prayed 
that said writ be made immediately returnable, setting forth that 
said Miss Fisher was unjustly and unlawfully detained in the cus¬ 
tody of said T. C. W T hite; that there was no judgment of debt against 
her, and that she was not indebted. 

The said alleged Chinese tailor put up no bond or security to cover 
any damages the said Miss Fisher might sustain by reason of her 
unlawful arrest. 

The said petition for the writ of habeas corpus was taken at once 
to the clerk of the said United States Court for China, one Frank E. 
Hinckley, who informed the petitioner’s attorney that the rule of 


102 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


said court requiring a deposit of $35 gold to be paid as a court fee on 
filing a case applied to said petition, and that said petition could 
not be filed unless said court fee of $35 was paid or unless said Judge 
Thayer ordered otherwise. 

The petitioner’s attorney therefore did not deposit said $35 with 
said clerk nor ask him to administer an oath in verification of the 
facts set forth in said petition, but instead went at once to the 
chambers of said Judge Thayer and handed to him the said petition, 
stating that the said clerk refused to file same of record without the 
said $35 deposit fee, and also at the same time requested the said 
judge to administer an oath in support of said petition. 

To this the said judge replied, in effect, that there was no precedent 
in his court for fifing said petition without depositing said $35 fee; 
that the clerk was right in not accepting said petition for record 
without said fee; that the young woman would receive justice in the 
consular court, and finally did unlawfully and contemptuously 
neglect and refuse to administer said oath, did neglect and refuse to 
order the writ to be issued as prayed, and was thus guilty of mal¬ 
feasance in office. Whereupon the attorney for the petitioner stated 
he would give publicity to the facts and thus expose all parties in 
the conspiracy to prevent Miss Fisher leaving vShanghai. This state¬ 
ment was communicated to the attorney for the alleged tailor and to 
the said Frank W. Hadley. Word of this within a few minutes 
reached the moving spirit of the conspiracy, the said procuress, who 
put in appearance in the office of the said Frank W. Hadley and paid 
into his hands the alleged amount due the alleged tailor. She, the 
said procuress, gave no reason why she should have paid said amount 
under the circumstances and facts as above stated. 

The said Frank W. Hadley then ordered the release from imprison¬ 
ment of the said Miss S. Fisher. (For proceedings in above case, see 
certified copy of transcript of record under seal of the American 
consulate, Shanghai, China, and the carbon copy of said petition for 
a writ of habeas corpus marked, respectively, “Exhibit No. 4” and 
“Exhibit No. 4A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof.) 

FACTS LEADING UP TO SPECIFICATION NO. 5. 

In or about the latter part of March, 1910, two accomplished young 
women, bent upon seeing the world, especially the Far East and the 
Orient generally, bought tickets in San Francisco for the trans-Pacific 
voyage. After visiting Japan they went to Shanghai, China, where 
they were guests of the Palace Hotel, one of the leading hotels in that 
far-famed port. 

One of these young women was well known in the musical circles 
of San Francisco. The San Francisco Dramatic Review of February 
19, 1910, published her photograph, and spoke of her as— 

the dainty, sweet Sue Tusher, who is creating a lot of talk on account of her 
voice. * * * Miss Tusher has a very fine dramatic soprano voice. She is spoken 
of and known as Sue Tusher, the girl with the pretty face. Miss Tusher has had some 
flattering offers to do concert work, but prefers remaining where she is known and 
recognized as a favorite. 

Miss Tusher, while an accomplished musician and passionately 
fond of traveling, was yet withal somewhat too self-reliant and 
wayward. In consequence of which she fell an easy prey to the 
wiles of a “cadet” of a notorious Shanghai procuress, and before she 



CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


103 


fully real. 1 zed what had happened, she found herself in a house, of 111 
fame at the mercy of said procuress, with all her ideals of oriental 
splendors and travd shattered. 

Within a few days aft< r being thus entrapped she made her escape, 
and bought a ticket to San Francisco, to return home, with no further 
desire to see any more of the Orient. She sought r<fuge in the 
Palace Hotel, to await the sailing of the first trans-Pacific passenger 
ship for San Francisco. 

If Miss Tusher thought her troubles ended here she was wrong. 
She did not know all the wiles of the procuress—even the most com¬ 
mon one resorted to by them, to secure the return into their power of 
a woman who has once felt it and escaped ; that is, the resort by them 
to the courts, under the name of some alleged tailor, for a warrant 
of arrest for an alk ged debt on the ground of seeking to leave the 
jurisdiction of the court to evade paying same. 

This trick was tried on Miss Tusher. It almost succeeded in its 
object, and would have had not the said procuress and her cocon¬ 
spirators been thwarted by the events following a petition, though 
denied, to the said Rufus PI. Thayer, as judge of the United States 
Court for China, for a writ of habeas corpus for the release of Miss 
Tusher from imprisonment in the United States consular jail. 

Here she was forcibly taken under arrest by one T. C. White, 
marshal of the United States consular court at Shanghai, from the 
said Palace Hotel, under a warrant issued by one Frank W. Hadley, 
as judge of said consular court. 

Hadley, by the way, was not a lawyer, was ignorant of the most 
elementary principles of the law, and was in conspiracy with said 
procuress to defeat Miss TusheFs departure from Shanghai. 

The denial of the writ of habeas corpus, a writ of right, is the 
basis of the fifth specification. 

NOTES ON LAW AND FACTS UNDER SPECIFICATION NO. 5. 

Law. —The writ of habeas corpus has been in force so long in 
the English courts that the date of its origin can not now be ascer¬ 
tained. Traces of its existence are found in the Year Book 48 
Ed., Ill, 22. In the reign of Henry VI it was familiar to the judges 
and well understood by them. 

Our Federal Constitution provides in Article I, section 9, §2, that: 

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in 
cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. 

The constitutions of the several States contain similar provisions. 

The writ issues as a matter of course, and on the return to it the 
court decides whether the party applying is denied the right of 
proceeding any further with it. (4 Wall., 115.) 

The jurisdiction of the Federal courts in writs of habeas corpus 
is prescribed by several acts of Congress. (See sec. 14 of the judi¬ 
ciary act of Sept. 24, 1789, vol. 1, Stat. L., 81; Rev. St at., sec. 642.) 

As an evidence of the steps taken to guard the personal liberty 
of citizens by the States may be mentioned the legislation of the 
State of California. By section 1505 of the penal code of that State 
it is provided that: 

If any judge, after a proper application is made, refuses to grant an order for a writ 
of habeas corpus, or if the officer or person to whom such writ may be directed, refuses 


104 


CHARGES AGAINST RUEUS H. THAYER. 


obedience to the command thereof he shall forfeit and pay to the person aggrieved a 
sum not exceeding $5,000, to be recovered by action in any court of competent 
jurisdiction. 

Everyone who is deprived of his liberty is entitled to attempt to 
regain it by applying for a writ of habeas corpus. This is what is 
meant by the privilege of the writ. It is the privilege one has to 
ask that a writ be issued and the cause of his detention inquired into. 

When one is committed to await his trial for a crime it is a privi¬ 
lege to be allowed a writ whereby the legality of his arrest may be 
inquired of, and he may be discharged or admitted to bail. But 
when one who has not committed and is not supposed to have com¬ 
mitted a criminal offense is wrongfully restrained of his liberty, that 
he should be allowed to institute a civil suit to be relieved from the 
confinement is a right which every State is bound to secure at a]l 
times to its citizens. (Watson on the Constitution, vol. 1, p. 723.) 

Chief Justice Taney, in ex parte Merryman, after reviewing the 
constitutional history on the subject of habeas corpus, held that 
Congress was the only power which could suspend the privilege of 
the writ. (Taney’s Decisions, 246, 269.) 

But the said Rufus H. Thayer, in far-off China, assuming the 
despotic powers of a Czar, unhesitatingly and unscrupulously, 
suspends the writ with impunity. He knows that American citizens 
in China must submit to his arbitrary power for the reason that the 
nearest appellate court is in California, to reach which requires nearly 
a month, and this at great expense, which many can not afford. 

Miss S. Fisher, whose true name is Miss Sue Tusher, had a fine 
dramatic voice. But a couple of months before she fell into the 
hands of the said procuress and failed to secure relief from the 
United States court for China, the San Francisco Dramatic Review 
of February 19, 1910, published her photograph and gave a most 
complimentary notice of her voice and beauty. Said notice and 
photograph hereto attached, marked “Exhibit No. 4b,” and made 
part hereof. 

As further tending to establish the fact that a conspiracy existed to 
prevent the said Miss Fisher leaving Shanghai, and to keep her in 
Shanghai for an immoral purpose, as aforesaid, several cases will now 
be set forth in detail with certified copies of transcript of record of 
the respective cases. 

These cases will show that reputable Chinese merchants, who had 
sued American citizens in the said United States consular court and 
the said United States court for China, and had obtained judgments 
in their favor, could not, after exhausting all legal remedies to 
said judgments, restrain the judgment debtors by means of 
ne exeat, leaving the jurisdiction of said courts to'evade the ] 
of said judgments. 

The judgment creditors, upon learning that they were i 
lose the fruits of their suits, sought by bills in equity to seer 
of ne exeat , discovery, and accounting, to prevent their 
leaving the jurisdiction of the court and for a discovery of their, 
assets, and for an accounting of money in the hands of the'judgment] 
debtors as agents of the judgment creditors. 

The said courts either denied a hearing on said bills or dismissed' 
same. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUEUS H. THAYER. 


105 


These cases were those of Tze Hai Ching v. Chas. A. Biddle, and of 
Nee Chang Mow v. Andrews & George. The history of the latter case 
was a subject of report to Congress. (See Report of Inspection of 
United States consulates in the Orient, H. Doc. No. 665, 59th Cong., 
1st sess.) The extraordinary manner of the said Thayer's treatment 
of this case will be set forth in detail after going into the details of the 
case of Tze Hai Ching v. Chas. A Biddle. 

On October 23, 1911, the said Tze Hai Ching obtained a judgment 
against the said Chas. A. Biddle in the United States Court for China, 
the said Biddle having confessed judgment to the amount of Mexican 
dollars 2,954.72, equivalent to about $1,477.36 lawful money of the 
United States at exchange 50. 

The attorney for the plaintiff in the above case on the 13th day of 
March, 1912, at Shanghai, secured a writ of execution from the said 
court against the goods of the said defendant, Charles A. Biddle. 
This writ was duly issued by James B. Davies, clerk of the said 
United States Court for China, and placed into the hands of Daniel 
A. Wilson, jr., marshal of said court for execution. 

The plaintiff on the said 13th day of March, 1912, deposited with 
the said clerk the sum of Mexican dollars 15 to secure the costs of 
said writ, and received a receipt for same. (See Exhibit No. 6, 
hereto annexed and made a part hereof.) 

The said marshal having this writ in his possession to serve was 
instructed by the judgment creditor’s attorney to execute same 
against the goods and property of the said judgment debtor in the 
Savoy Hotel, Shanghai, of which hotel the said judgment debtor 
was manager, and said to be half owner of the stock of the corpora¬ 
tion owning said hotel. 

The said marshal was further instructed to execute said writ 
against the monies deposited in the said judgment debtor’s name in 
the International Bank, located at No. 1 Kinkiang Road, said 
Shanghai, said bank being an American corporation within the juris¬ 
diction of the said United States Court for China. 

The said marshal neglected and failed to obey the said instructions 
given him as aforesaid and made a false return of no goods found. 

The said judgment creditor having reason to believe that the said 
judgment debtor was shortly going to leave China for the United 
States, sought the issue of another writ of execution—an alias writ. 

To secure this second writ, $35 lawful money of the Urited States 
was deposited with the said clerk of said court, and the said marshal 
I to execute same at once on the moneys stand- 
V. Biddle’s name in the said International Bank, 
aid $35 gold, signed by said clerk of court, and 
laid marshal, hereto annexed and marked u Ex- 
nd 3. 

ourt neglected, failed, and refused to issue said 
jpe 1 > .2 e^cueion. (See letter from said clerk dated Shanghai, 

June 13, 1912, Exhibit No. 6A, p. 4, hereto annexed.) 

On the 14th June, 1912, the said Charles A. Biddle, his wife, and 
ch'M were first-class passengers on a trans-Pacific ship, to wit, the 

amship Persia, from Shanghai to Vancouver, B. C., via San Fran¬ 
cisco, leaving Shanghai on that date. (See North China Herald for 
June 22, 1912, p. 886.) 


106 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


The marshal upon being instructed to act on the aforesaid first- 
writ of execution, as aforesaid, and upon the said second writ asked for, 
said he would not execute the writ issued, or the second writ asked 
for, unless he was first paid in cash one and a half times the amount 
of said judgment, to wit, Mexican dollars 4,432.08, or United States 
gold dollars 2,216.04. 

A complaint having been filed in the United States court on or 
about the 28th day of January, 1911, against an acting marshal of 
said court, and the judge in that case having threatened to punish 
the attorney for filing said case and having stated that he would not 
permit his court to be used to bring suits against officers of his court 
(see specification No. 6), the attorney for the said judgment creditor 
in the said case, Tze Hai Ching, against the said judgment debtor, 
Charles A. Biddle, placed the fact of the said Marshal Daniel A. Wil¬ 
son’s refusal to execute said writ unless paid the said sum of $2,216.04 
gold, or its equivalent in Mexican currency, before the said Rufus 
H. Thayer, in chambers of said court, in presence of a witness, an 
associate attorney in said case. The said Thayer stated emphatically 
that the said marshal was within the law in refusing to execute said 
writ unless protected by the said amount deposited in cash as de* 
mandedbyhim. 

It is respectfully submitted that the stand taken by the said 
Thayer on the execution of said judgment rendered on the confession 
of the judgment debtor, an American, in favor of a Chinese subject, a 
reputable merchant (see Exhibit No. 5, pp. 1 to 21 thereof, hereto 
annexed), the refusal of the marshal to execute same, with the 
approval of the said Thayer, defeats the object for which said court 
was created and brings the American Government and Americans 
generally in the Orient into disrepute, causing them to be regarded 
with suspicion by the Chinese merchants. 

That said Thayer was grossly in error, and that said marshal was 
liable on his official bond, if a suit on said bond could have been 
fairly tried in said court without having been prejudged as aforesaid, 
it is respectfully submitted are established by the following author¬ 
ities, namely: 

The purpose of a writ of execution is to authorize the officer to 
whom it is directed and delivered to seize and hold the property of 
the debtor for the satisfaction of the amount ordered to be made by 
such writ. And in the absence of instructions it is his duty to 
proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it in 
accordance with its mandates. If at the time of the delivery of the 
writ the plaintiff, being apprehensive of the loss of his debt unless 
it be immediately levied, directs the officer to proceed forthwith, or 
points out property belonging to the defendants and requests its 
seizure, it is his duty to make every possible effort to comply with 
such directions or instructions consistent with a just regard for other 
duties which may devolve upon him, or he will be answerable for the 
consequences, if any injury or loss result to the plaintiff by reason of 
any neglect or omission of such duty. (Habersham v. Sears, 11 Or., 
433; Guiterman v. Sharvey, 46 Minn., 183; 24 Am. St. Rept., 218; 
Freeman on Executions, 3d Ed., Vol. 1, pp. 394-395.) 

The return of an execution wholly unsatisfied, after a negligent 
delay by the sheriff in making the levy, establishes prima facie his 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 107 

liability for the whole amount of the judgment. (Guiterman v. 
Sharvey, 46 Minn., 183; 24 Am. St. Rep., 218.) 

A writ or process from a court having jurisdiction of the parties 
and process and regular on its face is a sufficient protection to a 
marshal who levies or does other acts under it and to his deputies 
and aids. (Matthews v. Densmore, 109 U. S., 216; 27 L. Ed., 912; 
Foucher v. Kenner, 36 La. Ann., 149; Goddard v. Parsons, 12 Utah! 
376; 42 Pac., 1134.) 

If a writ of execution is not avoided by proper proceedings it is 
in all other courts a sufficient protection to the officer executing it. 
(Matthews v. Densmore, 109 U. S., 216.) 

In the case of Matthews v. Densmore (109 U. S., 216) the marshal 
for the eastern district of Michigan seized the goods of the defend¬ 
ants in error under a writ of attachment issued from the circuit court 
of that district on a defective affidavit: Held , That in proceedings 
in the State courts of Michigan against the marshal the process is 
sufficient to protect him if the property seized under it was liable to 
be attached in that suit. 

A parallel case, in so far as it relates to the protection of the marshal 
in enforcing a writ of execution against money in bank, is that of 
the Bank of the United States v. The Bank of Washington (6 Pet., 
8). Mr. Justice Thompson in delivering the opinion of the United 
States Supreme Court in this case said: 

Whatever, therefore, was done under the execution toward enforcing payment of 
the judgment was done under authority of law. Had the marshal, instead of the run¬ 
ner of the bank, gone with the execution and received the money or coerced payment , 
he would have been fully justified by authority of the execution. (6 Pet. (U. »S.), 16.) 

Section 787, Revised Statutes, provides that— 

It shall be the duty of the marshal of each district to attend the district and circuit 
courts when sitting therein and to execute throughout the district all lawful pre¬ 
cepts directed to him and issued under the authority of the United States, and he 
shall have power to command all necessary assistance in the execution of his duty. 

The said plaintiff, having no money to make said deposit as unlaw¬ 
fully demanded by said marshal and learning that said judgment 
debtor had bought two first-class tickets for passage for himself and 
wife to San Francisco, and was thus going beyond the seas and beyond 
the jurisdiction of said court, sought to detain said judgment debtor 
as said Miss Sue Tusher had been detained. 

To this end the plaintiff filed on June 13, 1912, an original bill in 
equity in the United States consular court seeking to recover on his 
said judgment the amount of $500, lawful money of the United 
States, the limit of jurisdiction of said court. The said Rufus H. 
Thayer by this time had gone to Europe on his usual annual six 
months’ absence from his post of duty without leave, so the plaintiff 
could get no relief or seek no relief from said United States court for 
China if it would have granted it. Hence his willingness to collect 
on his judgment the said sum of $500 in the United States consular 
court. 

The said bill in equity prayed for a writ of ne exeat, set forth the 
said judgment in his favor, that said judgment debtor was going 
beyond the seas and beyond the jurisdiction of said court to evade 
payment of said judgment, and further prayed for discovery of assets 
of said judgment debtor. 


108 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


The said consular court absolutely refused to permit the said 
original bill with summons to be served upon the judgment debtor, 
notwithstanding that all court fees had been deposited with the clerk 
of said consular court; the said consular court further absolutely 
denied the right of the judgment creditor to be heard in said court 
on his said original bill and refused to permit the attorney for said 
judgment creditor to present said case m court, and. arbitrarily dis¬ 
missed said original bill without any hearing on same. 

Upon being asked the reason for this high-handed action the said 
consular court said it would send a letter to the attorney for the 
judgment creditor the following day. The next day, the 14th of 
June, 1912, a letter transmitting a so-called decision of said court 
was received, so called because no hearing was had on said bill, no 
summons issued to the defendant, no appearance put in by said 
defendant, and no proceedings of any nature whatever had on said 
original bill. (The full transcript of record in this case certified, 
marked “Exhibit No. 5,” pp. 1 to 21 thereof are hereto annexed and 
made part hereof.) 

It will be seen from said transcript of record that there was no 
summons issued, that no appearance was made by the judgment 
debtor; defendant, that no hearing was had on said original bill, yet 
there was a so-called “decision” of said court denying the prayers of 
the plaintiff, and dismissing his said bill. 

The judgment* debtor and his wife sailed as first-class passengers 
for San Francisco from Shanghai on the 14th day of June, 1912. 

The law is well settled that a plaintiff may waive part of his claim 
and remit sum in excess of jurisdictional amount. (American Digest, 
Century Edition, vol. 13, sec. 428, chs. 2267-2269; Putnam v. Shelop, 
12 Johns., 435, New York; Tennant v. Gray, 5 Munf., 494, Virginia; 
Wharton v. King, 60 Ala., 365; Giles v. Spinks, 64 Ga., 205; Velvin 
v. Hall, 78 Ga., 136; Stewart v. Thompson, 85 Ga., 829; Wright v. 
Smith, 76 Ill., 216; Wooster v. McKinley, 1 Kans., 317; Hussey v. 
King, 83 Me., 568; Matlack v. Lare, 32 Mo., 262; Roof v. Meyer, 8 
Civ. Proc. R., 60, New York; Van Clief v. Van Vechten, 130 N. Y., 
571; People v. Marine Court, 36 Barb., 341, New York; 23 How. 
Prac., New York; 14 Abb. Prac., New York.) 

From said transcript of record in this case and from that in the 
case of the arrest of Miss Sue Tusher (Exhibit No. 4, pp. 1 to 6 
thereof) it will be seen that said consular court holds that a young 
woman who seeks to leave China and a life of shame may be arrested 
and imprisoned on the unsupported statement of an alleged Chinese 
tailor that the said young woman owes him a certain sum of money 
for work and material and is about to leave the jurisdiction of said 
court, but that a man, an American citizen, against whom there is 
an unsatisfied judgment, a certified copy of which was filed in said 
court, who had bought first-class tickets for himself and wife from 
Shanghai to San Francisco and was to sail the next day beyond the 
seas and beyond the jurisdiction of said court for the purpose of 
evading his just debts, as evidenced by said certified copy of said 
judgment, could not be stopped and could not be placed under arrest 
as Miss Sue Tusher had been by said consular court. 

The rather startling treatment by the said Thayer of the case of 
Nee Chang Mow v. Andrews & George, wherein the plaintiff, as judg- 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 109 

ment creditor, sought to enforce the payment of his judgment, will 
now be stated. 

Alter H. H. D. Peirce, Third Assistant Secretary of State, had made 
his report on his inspection of consulates in the Orient, in which this 
case was treated as one of the charges of malfeasance in office against 
John Goodnow, United States consul general at Shanghai, and after 
Secretary of State, Mr. Root, had sent said report to the President to 
be transmitted to Congress, in response to the resolution of the House 
of Representatives of the 8th March, 1906, and was printed as House 
Document 665, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session, a Court of the 
United States for China was created. 

With the creation of this court there grew renewed hopes of having 
said judgment enforced. 

To evade the jurisdiction of said court after it was organized in 
Shanghai, the said judgment debtors, Andrews & George, incorporated 
their firm in Shanghai into a British corporation under the name of 
Andrews, von Fischerz & George (Ltd.), and transacted business at 
No. 1 Foochow Road, Shanghai, where they are now located. The 
said incorporation was under the Hongkong ordinances. By doing 
this they took from the United States Court for China its jurisdiction 
over of the stock in trade of said judgment debtors in Shanghai, and 
they then went to Yokohama, Japan, where they carried on a partner¬ 
ship business under the firm name of Andrews & George. 

They protected their business interest in Shanghai by having it 
managed by a German subject named B. von Fischerz. By living 
in Japan they thus removed their persons beyond the jurisdiction of 
said United States Court for China. Thus their persons were not 
within the jurisdiction of said court, while their property was placed 
under the protection of the British laws and removed from sa^d 
United States court. Yet they thus contrived without trouble to 
continue to conduct the business in Shanghai by a manager and 
have their property within the said jurisdiction, without being 
subject to any judgment of the said United States Court for China. 

In October, 1911, the said judgment debtor, H. W. Andrews, 
stopped over at Shanghai between boats, bound for Yokohama, 
Japan. His judgment creditor espied him, learned that he was 
passing through Shanghai on his way to Japan, and without delay 
filed a bill in equity wherein he alleged all the jurisdictional facts 
to give said United States Court for China jurisdiction to entertain 
said bill, paid the court fees for filing said bill, and took a receipt 
for said fees. (See Exhibit No. 8, pp. 1 to 14 thereof.) Execution 
on this judgment had been already sought in the consular court 
which rendered said judgment, but no recovery was had thereon. 

The said judgment remained in full force, not reversed, paid off, 
or satisfied to the plaintiff. The said bill prayed for a writ of ne 
exeat, alleging the judgment debt, the fraudulent transfer of his 
property, and that the debtor was about to leave the jurisdiction 
of the court to evade payment; that the said debtor be either ar¬ 
rested or placed under a bond to protect said debt; and also peti¬ 
tioned for an accounting and for a discovery of the assets of said 
judgment debtor. 

The certified judgment on which said bill was based is annexed 
hereto as Exhibit No. 8, pp. 7 to 14 thereof. 


110 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


While this case justified and required the court to issue said writ 
or order for arrest, grounds for which were entirely lacking in the 
said case of Miss Fisher, who had been arrested on the unsupported 
statement of an .alleged tailor, while in this case against the said 
Andrews there was a certified copy of a judgment to establish the 
indebtedness against said Andrews, the said court refused to issue 
said writ or order for arrest of said Andrews. 

An answer was filed to said bill by the said defendant, H. W. 
Andrews, in which he admitted that said judgment had been ren¬ 
dered against him by the said United States consular court, but 
alleged that a bill in equity was not a property remedy to sue for a 
writ of ne exeat, or for a discovery of assets, nor for an accounting. 

The plaintiff filed an amended bill, having been granted only 24 
hours within which to amend his bill, to which the said defendant 
demurred, but failed to file certificate of his counsel that in his opinion 
it was well founded in point of law, and further failed to support said 
demurrer by affidavit that it was not interposed for delay, which 
two requirements of certificate and affidavit were essential under 
rale 31 of the Rules of Practice in Equity in all the courts of the 
United States. (See United States Supreme Court Rules then 
in force—October and November, 1911.) 

The said rule 31 of the Rules of Practice in Equity in the courts of 
the United States was in the following words: 

No demurrer or plea shall be allowed to be filed to any bill unless upon certificate 
of counsel that in his opinion it is well founded in point of law and supported by affi¬ 
davit of the defendant; that it is not interposed for delay. 

One year later, namely, November 4, 1912, the United States 
Supreme Court, by rule 29, Equity Iiules, abolished demurrers and 
pleas. 

The said demurrer filed by said defendant, Andrews, should have 
been dismissed as fatally defectively said Thayer by reason of non- 
compliance with said rule 31. (National Bank v. Ins. Co., 104 U. S., 
54.) 

Pending the hearing on the said demurrer, the said Rufus H. Thayer 
was insulting, contemptuous, and most arbitrary, saying he would 
not have granted leave to amend had not defendant consented, and 
when plaintiff’s attorney had occasion to use the law library of the 
said court, the property of the United States, refused to permit its 
Use in the evenmg unless a court attendant was well paid by the 
plaintiff to be present during its use. 

On the Bund, the mam thoroughfare of Shanghai, Mr. R. S. Dugal, 
one of the employees of the said defendant, H. W. Andrews, offered to 
make a bet, and did make a bet, that notwithstanding the validity 
and justness of the plaintiff’s judgment against his employer, and that 
it was still in force, that the said Rufus H. Thayer, as judge of the 
United States Court for China, would not enforce said judgment, 
intimating that the said Thayer had been bribed to rule against the 
plaintiff and to dismiss his said bill. 

The indebtedness of said defendant Andrews to said plaintiff as 
evidenced by said judgment with interest to date of filing said bill 
was $8,213.66 lawful money of the United States, or taels 13,689.44 
Shanghai Sycee, at exchange $0.60. 

The said Thayer heard arguments on the said demurrer on October 
31, 1911, and withheld his decision thereon until the 6th of the follow- 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


Ill 


ing month, so timing his decision as to allow the judgment debtor 
to take a boat that same night and sail the next day for Yokohama, 
Japan, which he did. 

Notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff in his bill set up a 
sum certain of money due, to wit, a judgment of the United States 
Consular Court, to the jurisdiction of which court the said United 
States Court for China succeeded, and succeeded to all its unfinished 
business, judgments, documents, and records, of said court; and fur¬ 
ther set up the fact that the said defendant had fraudulently trans¬ 
ferred his property to defeat payment of said judgment; that the 
records of said consular court show that said plaintiff had in that court 
sought execution of said judgment in vain; that the said plaintiff 
set up grounds for an accounting and prayed for an accounting; 
and had alleged that said defendant was temporarily within the 
jurisdiction of said United States Court for China and was about to 
leave the jurisdiction of said court to evade payment of said judgment, 
and further prayed for discovery of assets, which said allegations were 
duly supported by affidavit and constituted ample grounds to give 
said court jurisdiction of said bill in equity; and notwithstanding 
the fact that the then twenty first rule of the Rules of Practice of 
the Courts of Equity of the United States, provides as follows, to wit: 

The plaintiff, in his bill, shall be at liberty to omit, at his option, the part which is 
usually called the common confederacy clause of the bill, * * * also what is 
•commonly called the jurisdictional clause of the bill, that the acts complained of are 
contrary to equity, and that the defendant is without any remedy at law; and the bill 
shall not be demurrable, therefore, 

the said Thayer did decide, contrary to said rule, that said bill was 
demurrable, sustained said demurrer, which was permitted to be filed 
contrary to said rule 31 of the equity rules, and dismissed said bill. 

The said defendant, II. W. Andrews, the same day the said decision 
was rendered, to wit, the 6th day of November, 1911, went aboard 
the German ship Prinzess Alice, of the Nord Deutscher Lloyd, and 
sailed the next day for Yokohama, Japan. 

After sustaining said demurrer, the said Thayer ironically said: 

The present bill is struck out, and it is for the plaintiff to determine his next step. 

A copy of said judgment sustaining said demurrer is annexed 
hereto. (See Exhibit No. 8, pp. 15 to 21 thereof.) 

Upon rendering said judgment the said Thayer knew that the 
defendant would leave at once the jurisdiction of the court, by 
boarding the said German passenger ship lying in the harbor, and sail 
the next day for Japan, and thus prevent any “next step,” as he 
thus placed himself beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and that 
therefore an appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals at 
San Francisco from the said decision would be futile, as the United 
States has no extraterritorial jurisdiction in Japan. 

Thus it will be seen that a judgment of the United States consular 
court, which court was succeeded in its jurisdiction by the United 
States Court for China, on which judgment the plaintiff sought execu¬ 
tion in said consular court in vain and exhausted every legal remedy 
to enforce said judgment, was rendered futile because said Thayer 
refused to entertain jurisdiction of a bill in equity setting forth 
jurisdictional facts to give said jurisdiction. 


112 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


Aside from the equity jurisdiction laid for discovery and for the 
writ of ne exeat, the further ground for an accounting in equity was 
laid in said bill. The law, in brief, on this subject is as follows: 

In many cases it appears that the equitable jurisdiction over mat¬ 
ters of account is exercised not primarily upon the ground of account 
alone, but because there is involved some recognized head of equi¬ 
table jurisdiction, as in the instance of the jurisdiction which such 
courts possess and exercise over express, implied, and constructive 
trusts and frauds. (See 1 Cyc., 417.) 

Another general principle is that when a court of equity once 
acquires jurisdiction upon equitable grounds it will proceed to do 
complete justice and administer full relief. To this end it will order 
an accounting, and will settle the whole controversy, even to the ex¬ 
tent of adjudicating matters of purely legal cognizance. And, on the 
other hand, where defendant is called on to account in a proper case, 
the court, having obtained jurisdiction for this purpose, will take 
cognizance of the whole matter involved and necessary incidental 
relief will be granted. (See vol. 1 Cyc., 418.) 

Further, equity assumes jurisdiction in matters of account to pre¬ 
vent a multiplicity of suits. (See vol. 1 Cyc., 418, and cases therein 
cited.) 

So uniformly have courts of equity assumed jurisdiction of matters 
of account that the rule in general terms is now established that they 
have concurrent jurisdiction with courts of law in all matters of ac¬ 
count. (See vol. 1 Cyc., 418, and numerous cases therein cited.) 

In cases arising ex contractu or quasi ex contractu, but involving 
accounts, courts of equity have exercised a general jurisdiction; 
among which, arising from the cognizance of this court, are agencies, 
claims against consignees, receivers, and stewards. Where the con¬ 
tract fixes no time for its termination it will be construed as requiring 
an accounting at reasonable periods, and the reasonableness of such x 
periods will be determined by the previous acts of the parties. (See 
vol. 1, Cyc, 419.) F 1 

In all cases in which an action of account would have been a proper 
remedy at law the jurisdiction of a court of equity over the matter 
involved seems to be undoubted. (See vol. 1, Cyc, 419, and numer¬ 
ous cases therein cited.) 

This decision of said Rufus H. Thayer in the case of Nee Chang 
Mow v. H. W. Andrews, holds in effect that a judgment debtor who 
has fraudulently transferred his property to defraud creditors and 
who is about to leave the jurisdiction of the court to evade 
of said judgment, after the judgment creditor hr 
remedies, can not be restrained by ne exeat, or r 
Thayer’s refusal to grant the writ of habeas co] • 
in the Sue Tusher case, holds in effect that th< 
authority to arrest a young woman for alleged 
ported statement of a Chinese tailor that the sai 
about to leave the jurisdiction of said court wi 
tailor’s bill, regardless of the fact that the charge against said young 
woman was “a frame-up” pure and simple—in other words, a con¬ 
spiracy to hold her in Shanghai for an unlawful purpose. 


payment 




CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


113 


Specification No. 6. 

That the said Rufus H. Thayer at Shanghai, in the Republic of 
China, to wit, on the 28tli day of January, 1911, being then and there 
judge of the United States Court for China, threatened to punish 
lor contempt of court and to disbar an attorney at law who filed in 
said court a charge of perjury against John M. Darrali while an acting 
marshal of said court and a charge of making false accounts of fees 
and costs alleged to have been paid to A. E. Louro in the case of the 
United States v. Price. 

The said A. E. Louro duly made an affidavit to said charge on the 
said 28th day of January, 1911, before James B. Davies, clerk of 
the said court, and said charge was filed as aforesaid by said Mr. E. A. 
Louro’s attorney. 

The said Thayer lost his temper and in an angry and loud voice 
contemptuously and unlawfully asserted that his court was being 
unlawfully resorted to for the purpose of bringing criminal charges 
against an ex-officer of said court, and further contemptuously and 
unlawfully said that he would not permit it and if persisted in the 
said attorney would be punished for contempt of court and dis¬ 
barred. 

Further, the said Thayer unlawfully directed the said clerk of court 
to return said charge to said attorney, which was done. See original 
charge and letter of transmittal from said clerk inclosing said charge 
to said attorney (Exhibit No. 7, pp. 1 and 2 thereof). 

On or about the 1st of February, 1911, another and more elaborate 
charge was filed against the said John M. Darrah in the clerk’s office 
of said court. Under threats of said Thayer, more vigorous in charac¬ 
ter than those he made on the 28th of January, 1911, the said second 
charge was withdrawn and surrendered into the hands of the said 
Thayer. 

NOTES ON LAW, FACTS, AND SIMILAR ACTS. 

The said Thayer in far-off China, 10,000 miles from Washington 
City, D. C., and 7,000 from the United States circuit court of appeals 
in San Francisco, Cal., unscrupulously prostituted the powers of his 
high office with impunity. He unscrupulously used his power to 
protect certain grafting and otherwise corrupt officers of his court 
against whom certain actions were sought to be brought, and on the 
other hand he unscrupulously used the power of his office, following 
in the footsteps of his notorious predecessor, John Goodnow, United 
States consul general and judge of the consular court, to bring false 
charges against those who lawfully excepted to the aforesaid unlawful 
acts. 

These false charges were quite as raw and audaciously brought 
as any “frame ups” resorted to by the grafting police officials of 
New York City, as alleged in their trials recently. 

The said Thayer, by unlawfully denying jury trials to citizens 
charged with crime, constitutes himself a jury and a judge of facts 
as well as of law. Citizens are convicted without due process of law 
and sent to the penitentiary. Hence he is all powerful. 

The nearest appellate court is in San Francisco, the United States 
circuit court of appeals, 7,000 miles away. This can only be reached 
at great expense and by many months’ delay by reason of the great 

9997—13-S 


114 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


distance. Thayer knows this and unhesitatingly takes advantage 
of it. He unscrupulously throws every possible obstacle in the 
way of those who seek to appeal from his decision to the said appellate 
court. 

This is done by his refusal to permit copies to be made of the 
records of a case as filed in the clerk’s office, by a refusal of a stay of 
execution in a criminal case after a writ of error was duly drawn and 
filed in the said clerk’s office, and by denying the right to a consulta¬ 
tion between the convicted appellant and his attorney before the 
said appellant was transported to the United States to serve a five- 
year term in the Federal penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth. The 
unlawful acts herein referred to were most pronounced in the case of 
the United States v. Frederick C. Faulkner. 

The said Faulkner was clerk of the United States legation at 
Peking. He had served through the Boxer uprising as sergeant in 
the Marine Corps and had received an honorable discharge therefrom. 

He was charged by Henry P. Fletcher, secretary of legation, with 
embezzlement. He pleaded “not guilty” and demanded a jury 
trial, which was denied him. 

The said Thayer and the said Fletcher were constantly in each 
other’s company during the trial of said case, walking to and from 
court together. Faulkner was railroaded to the penitentiary by 
said Thayer. 

The trial was at Tientsin, China. After he was charged there and 
held for trial, he was sent to the military prison of the said legation 
at Peking and placed in solitary confinement under an armed guard. 
It was only with the greatest difficulty and after traveling many miles 
to Peking from Tientsin was counsel able to see him. 

After his conviction he was taken to Shanghai, China, and here 
counsel was not permitted to see him until 20 minutes before he was 
taken to the ship to be transported to San Francisco and thence to 
said military prison at Fort Leavenworth. 

In striking contrast to the said Faulkner case is the case of the 
United States v. George Collinwood, charged with embezzlement at 
Tientsin of about the same amount that Faulkner was alleged to 
have embezzled, and tried at Shanghai on the 21st of March, 1911. 

The said Thayer was about to leave China and his post of duty 
therein for five or six months, as usual every year, and not wishing 
to delay his departure from China by going to Tientsin and trying 
said case, it was agreed that the said Collinwood should consent to 
be tried at Shanghai instead of at Tientsin; that is, to consent to plead 
guilty at Shanghai. In consideration thereof he was to be im¬ 
prisoned only three months in the consular jail at Shanghai. He did 
plead guilty to embezzlement as charged, and was only sentenced to 
three months’ imprisonment in the said consular jail. 

In the one case a young man of high standing in the community, 
the clerk of the legation at Peking, who protested his innocence and 
demanded due process of law—that is, a jury trial—angered the said 
Thayer by so doing and was sentenced to five years in the peniten¬ 
tiary, while on the other hand a man who did not hold the high stand¬ 
ing in the community that Faulkner did, and who was a confessed em¬ 
bezzler, but who did not anger said Thayer and who agreed to save 
said Thayer a voyage to Tientsin, and to plead guilty in Shanghai, 
was only sentenced to three months’ (90 days) imprisonment in the 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


115 


said consular jail at said Shanghai. (See North China Herald, vol. 
98, N. S., p. 743, Mar. 24, 1911—a weekly periodical published at 
Shanghai, China, on file in the Library of Congress.) 

Having shown that said Thayer refused to permit a charge to be 
filed against an officer of his court, to wit, against John M. Darrah, 
acting marshal, it may be interesting to cite another case. A young 
European woman, residing in Shanghai, sought through her attorney, 
Mr. George Musso, a barrister, to prosecute Arthur Bossett, district 
attorney of the United States Court for China, for assault. 

The court refused to permit the said charge to be filed in the clerk’s 
office, and stated ex parte that the said young woman was of the 
demimonde class, and invited the assault, if there was any. 

The said Arthur Bassett shortly after said alleged assault resigned 
and left Shanghai. 

In support of the charge that said Thayer unscrupulously pros¬ 
tituted his high office by using the power thereof to oppress and 
crush those who opposed" his unlawful acts, and especially excepted 
to his long absences from China in Japan and Europe for months at 
a time, might be mentioned the case of an attorney, who in order to 
obtain an order of court, was obliged to take a ship from Shanghai, 
China, to Kobe, Japan (see Exhibit No. 9 hereto annexed), and from 
this point take guides to the top of Mount Rokkosan. Here he found 
that the said Thayer had leased a bungalow and was spending the 
spring, summer, and part of the fall months, without leave of absence, 
without knowledge of the authorities in Washington, and at the 
same time having receipts for his salary made and dated in Shanghai, 
and bearing his signature, thus conveying to the Auditor for the 
State and Other Departments the impression that said Thayer was 
at his post of duty in China, instead of basking in the sunshine and 
reveling in the beauties of that picturesque spot of far-away Japan. 

The said Thayer was being paid by the Government at'the annual 
rate of $8,000 lawful money of the United States, which has in China 
the purchasing power of $25,000 in the United States. He arrived 
in China about the middle of March, 1909, yet in June of the same 
year, a little over two months later, he has located himself in the 
mountains of Japan until the following fall, instead of remaining in 
China and attending to pressing business of his court. 

Upon the said attorney complaining of the unnecessary expense 
he was put to in going to and from Japan for said order and remind¬ 
ing said Thayer that his post of duty was in China, not Japan, the 
said Thayer became exceedingly angry, threatening contempt of 
court proceedings, which could net be had in Japan. 

But upon the very first case said attorney had before said Thayer 
in Shanghai, the case of Barkovitz v. Katz, said Thayer fined him 
$25 lawful money of the United States or 10 days in jail, although 
section 4104 Revised Statutes limited the imprisonment to 24 hours, 
and suspended him from practice on the pretext that a certain peti¬ 
tion for a rehearing filed by said attorney in said case was CQntemp- 
tuous, at the same time denying the right of the said attorney to 
have a certified copy of said petition or to appear in said court on 
his own behalf to file a motion for appeal or to take any steps toward 
an appeal until the said attorney had first apologized to said Thayer 
as said judge. 


116 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


Having no redress except at enormous cost and many months' 
delay and many thousands of miles of travel to and from San Fran¬ 
cisco, about 14,000 miles, the said attorney paid said fine and made 
said apology. 

Specification No. 7. 

That the said Rufus H. Thayer, at Tientsin, in the Republic of 
China, being then and there judge of the United States Court for 
China, did on the 31st day of December, 1909, commit the offense 
of malfeasance in office in that he contemptuously and unlawfully 
usurped the province of a jury and denied due process of law in the 
case of the United States against Frederick C. Faulkner, a former 
clerk of the United States Legation, charged while acting as such 
clerk with embezzlement by the secretary of said legation—one 
Fletcher. During the whole course of the trial of said Faulkner the 
said Judge Thayer was in the company and society of the said com¬ 
plaining witness, Fletcher, and walked to and from the trial at the 
consulate with him. That said Thayer was biased and prejudiced 
against said Faulkner, and sentenced him to five years in the peni¬ 
tentiary at Fort Leavenworth. That said Thayer refused a stay of 
execution of said sentence, though said Faulkner duly gave notice of 
appeal, filed with said court a writ of error to the Circuit Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at San Francisco with his assignment 
of errors, bill of exceptions, and citation, and duly served cop¬ 
ies thereof upon the district attorney. That thereafter the said 
Faulkner was sent under guard from Tientsin to Shanghai, where 
his counsel sought a consultation with him, which was denied by 
said Thayer at said Thayer’s instructions, until a few minutes be¬ 
fore said Faulkner was put upon a ship to be transported to San 
Francisco to serve a term of five years in the said penitentiary at 
Fort Leavenworth. 

notes on law and facts under specification no. 7. 

The said Faulkner was a member of an eminently respectable 
Kentucky family, a man who served with honor and distinction in 
the Marine Corps as a sergeant and fought his way with that corps 
from Tientsin to Peking during the Boxer uprising, and later received 
an honorable discharge. 

Upon learning that a charge of embezzlement had been filed against 
him—he was on leave of absence at the time and not in China nor 
within the jurisdiction of said United States Court for China—he 
traveled several thousand miles to return to China and undergo trial. 

From the time he surrendered himself to the time he was trans¬ 
ported, as aforesaid, he was treated by the order of said Thayer as 
a most desperate outlaw, part of the time before his trial being 
placed in solitary confinement in the military prison at Peking, 
though he was not in the military service. 

The said Thayer has usurped the functions of a jury in other cases 
of Americans charged with felony and denied said Americans due 
process of law in their trials, and, as in the Faulkner case, has sen¬ 
tenced them to the penitentiary for a long term of years. 

While said Thayer was in Europe five and six months at a time 
without leave of absence, and away from his post of duty for that 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


117 


time without the knowledge of the Auditor for the State and Other 
Departments, and without the knowledge of the Department of 
State, drawing his salary at the rate of $8,000 a year on vouchers 
bearing date Shanghai, China, thus giving and intending to give the 
impression that he was at his post of duty in China, a young man, one 
Frank W. Hadley, a corrupt official, not a lawyer, presided as judge 
of the United States consular court. 

This man was not competent to practice before said court under 
its rules, yet presided as its judge. He held citizens to answer to the 
United States Court for China on felony charges, and held them in the 
consular jail during the deadly summer in Shanghai, without the 
necessary exercise a prisoner should take in that climate. 

This jail was in a building, to wit, No. 15 Whangpoo Road, Shanghai, 
China, for which the market rent was $45 a month for the whole 
building, but which Amos P. Wilder, consul general, leased in his own 
name, in his private capacity, and then falsely charged the Govern¬ 
ment $100 a month, falsely representing it to be the true rent for jail 
purposes, and then only gave partly said building for that purpose. 

Tne said Hadley had knowledge that the said false claims for rent 
were made by said Wilder against the Government, and further 
knew that the men whom he held for trial before the said Thayer 
would be confined in the attic of said building during the hot season, 
when Asiatic cholera and other deadly Asiatic diseases were rampant, 
the said prisoners awaiting trial in that deadly climate in said attic 
at the pleasure of said Thayer’s return from Europe in the late fall. 

The fact that citizens of the United States in China charged with 
a felony are entitled to a jury trial may be seen from the following 
sections of the Revised Statutes and from the act creating the United 
States court for China. 

By section 5 of the act of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. L., 814), creating 
said court the provisions of sections 4106 and 4107 of the Revised 
Statutes are repealed. 

These sections provided that associates or assessors, not exceeding 
four in criminal cases and three in civil, should sit with consuls in 
trying cases where the fine exceeds $100 or the term of imprisonment 
exceeds sixty days, or in civil cases if the damages exceed $500. 

In 1890 the Supreme Court held in the Ross case (140 U. S., 470), 
that as under said sections 4106 and 4107 [the defendant] “will have 
all the provisions necessaiy to secure a fair trial before the consul 
and his associates,” Congress had provided these associates in lieu 
of a jury and that the Constitution did not extend beyond the ter¬ 
ritorial boundaries of the United States. 

But by the said repeal of said sections 4106 and 4107, Revised 
Statutes, this substitution of associates or assessors for a jury is done 
away with, and under a well known rule of statutory construction 
the right which citizens had under the laws of the United States, made 
applicable to citizens in China, comes into full force again. 

Aside from this the act creating the said court provides, by section 
5 thereof, “That the procedure of said court shall be in accordance, 
as far as practicable, with the existing procedure prescribed for 
consular courts in China in accordance with the Revised Statutes 
of the United States.” . 

While section 4 of said act provides that if “such laws are deficient 
in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies, the common 


118 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


law, and the law as established by the decisions of the courts of the 
United States shall be applied by said court .’ 1 

It can not be denied that under the common law a jury trial was 
a right guaranteed to anyone charged with a felony; further, a per¬ 
son could not be attacked in person or property without a jury trial. 
Indeed this was a right guaranteed as such by the Magna Charta. 
(Proffatt Jury Tr., sec. 24.) 

If it is claimed that the laws of the United States do not specifically 
provide for jury trials in China, and that the laws as they now stand 
“are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable rem¬ 
edies,” then certainly under said section 4 of said act the common 
law, which is thereby made applicable, furnishes “suitable remedies,” 
for the reason that the common law furnishes the remedy of a jury 
trial as aforesaid. 

It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that “to repeal a 
statute will revive the common law.” (Sutherland on Statutory 
Construction, 228; Mathewson v. Phoenix Iron Foundry, 20 Fed. 
Rep., 281; State v. Rollins, 8 N. H., 550; Gray v. Obear, 54 Ga., 
231; Lowenberg v. People, 27 N. Y., 336; see Borsmare v. His 
Creditors, 8 La., 315.) 

Sections 4106 and 4107 Revised Statutes, providing a substitute 
for a jury trial, having been repealed by the act of June 30, 1906 
(34 Stat. L., 814), it follows therefore that the common-law remedy 
of a jury trial is revived, because said act specifically provides by 
section 4 thereof that the common law shall be applied and the law 
as established by the decisions of the courts of the United States. 

Can it even be claimed that “the law as established by the deci¬ 
sions of the courts of the United States” do not provide for jury 
trials ? 

The said law certainly provides for jury trials. Therefore it fol¬ 
lows that under the law creating said court jury trial is provided for 
citizens of the United States in China and that to attack a citizen 
in his property or person without a jury trial is to do so without due 
process of law. 

Further, the enactment of said provisions of said section 4 of 
said act is an affirmative enactment of a new rule in place of the 
said repealed sections 4106 and 4107 of the Revised Statutes. 
Under another rule of statutory construction, an affirmative enact¬ 
ment of a new rule implies a negative of whatever is not included, 
or is different; and if by the language used a thing is limited to 
be done in a particular form or manner, it includes a negative that 
it shall not be done otherwise. (Wells v. Supervisors, 102 U. S., 625; 
Chandler v. Hanna, 73 Ala., 390.) 

An intention will not be ascribed to the lawmaking power to 
establish .conflicting and hostile systems upon the same subject or 
to leave in force provisions of law by which the later will of the 
legislature, may be thwarted and overthrown. Such a result would 
render legislation a useless and idle ceremony and subject the law 
to the reproach of uncertainty and unintelligibility. ' (Lyddv v. 
Long Island City, 104 N. Y., 218.) 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


119 


Specification No. 8. 

That the said Rufus H. Thayer, at Shanghai, in China, being then 
and there judge of the United States Court for China, did, in a letter 
addressed to the Secretary of State, indorsing Frank Erasmus 
Hinckley for the office of district attorney of the United States Court 
for China, falsely state that the said Hinckley was a well-equipped 
lawyer, whereas in truth and in fact, as the said Rufus H. Thayer well 
knew, the said Hinckley was not a lawyer; that he had not been 
admitted in the United States to practice in any court of the United 
States, Federal or State; that he had not graduated at a law school, 
nor had he served in a lawyer’s office, nor had he ever practiced law 1 
in any part of the United States, or elsewhere. Well knowing these 
facts, and knowing and being judicially charged with the knowledge 
by the act creating said court that said district attorney “ shall be a 
lawyer of good standing and experience,” as a prerequisite for the 
said appointment and confirmation, the said Rufus H. Thayer never¬ 
theless thus falsely deceived the said Secretary of State and the 
Judiciary Committee of the Senate, which naturally supposed that the 
said Hinckley was an experienced lawyer of good standing as required 
by the statute creating said court. (34 Stat. L., 816, sec. 6 of the act 
of June 30, 1906.) Further, that under said section 6 of said act the 
said Rufus H. Thayer himself is not an experienced lawyer within 
the meaning of said section, which contemplates that the judge of said 
court shall be a man learned in the law and a lawyer of experience. 

NOTES ON FACTS UNDER SPECIFICATION NO. 8. 

Thayer does not come within said section for the reasons following, 
namely: 

First. His only study qualifying his admission to practice law 
was a two-year law course at a night school in Washington City, 
from 1872 to 1873, then known as the Columbian Law School, while 
during said two years he was a clerk in the Treasury Department, 
and continued in the service of the said department as a clerk for 
over 13 years thereafter, thus making over 15 years as clerk in said 
department, during which time he did not and could not practice 
law and gain experience for the reason that all his time was neces¬ 
sarily given to the said department in his position as clerk therein. 
The State Department Directory for 1912 states that he, the said 
Rufus H. Thayer, resigned his position in the Treasury Department 
during Cleveland’s first administration and entered upon the prac¬ 
tice of the law—implying that he did not care to work under a Demo¬ 
cratic administration. Instead of entering upon the practice of the 
law at that time, he worked for several years as clerk in several posi¬ 
tions, and then entered upon the practice of the law in the District of 
Columbia, over 15 years after his two-year night-school law course, 
and this practice was before the departments and the Court of 
Claims. 

It is respectfully submitted such a law course, however thorough 
a two-year night-school course might be, while the student is a clerk 
employed all day in the Treasury Department, does not equip a man 
for a judgeship who does not put into practice the knowledge thus 


120 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


gained until 15 years later. Especially it does not equip him for a 
judgeship of a court whose jurisdiction involves most complicated 
questions of private international law, and whose salary is 18,000 
gold a year, nearly as much as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the 
United States, for which salary the best-trained legal minds can be 
obtained. 

Further the said Rufus H. Thayer lacks that judicial temperament 
necessary for a judgeship of a court having an extraterritorial juris¬ 
diction, or in fact of any jurisdiction. This fact is demonstrated, it is 
respectfully submitted, by the foregoing and following specifications. 
For further facts under above specification No. 8 see the creden¬ 
tials of said Rufus H. Thayer as clerk in the Treasury Department, 
which are of record in the Appointment Division of said department, 
in support of the above allegations as to his law preparations for the 
legal profession. 


Specification No. 9. 

That the said Rufus H. Thayer, at Shanghai, in the Republic of 
China, being then and there judge of the United States Court for 
China, did knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully, during and between 
the quarter ending June 30, 1909, and the quarter ending Septem¬ 
ber 30, 1912, usurp a probate jurisdiction over the estates of citizens 
of the United States dying in China, in violation of sections 1709, 
1710, and 1711 of the Revised Statutes, and in violation of the act 
which created said United States Court for China, which act spe¬ 
cifically provides that said court shall exercise only a supervisory 
control over the discharge by consuls and vice consuls of the duties 
prescribed by the laws of the United States relating to decedents 
in China. (34 Stat. L., 815, sec. 2.) 

Further, that said Thayer was absent from his post of duty hi 
China for five and six months at a time without leave granted, dur¬ 
ing which time he was in Japan, Europe, and America, and that 
while thus absent he conducted his alleged probate court by cable. 

That between the aforesaid dates the said Rufus H. Thayer was 
guilty of malfeasance in office by reason of a gross abuse of power 
whereby he usurped a probate jurisdiction, as above set forth, 
thereby causing legal heirs or next of kin residing hi the United 
States and within the domicile of the intestate’s State to lose large 
sums of money which would otherwise come to them by descent 
under the probate laws of intestate’s State. This contrary to the 
oath of his high office and in violation of the laws of the United 
States. 

notes on the law and facts under specification no. 9. 

Law. —Herein are set forth the law, the facts leading up to this 
specification, and the history of the laws of the United States, and 
of the Consular Regulations and Instructions, which impose upon 
our consuls the duty to conserve the estates of citizens dying intes¬ 
tate in China, and which impose upon the judge of the United States 
court for China the duty to exercise a supervisory control over the 
discharge by consuls and vice consuls of the duties prescribed by 
the laws of the United States relating to decedents in China. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


121 


Almost at the very birth of our Nation, 3 years after the rati¬ 
fication of the Federal Constitution by the State conventions, and 
3 years after the first session of Congress—to be more specific, 
on the 14th day of April, 1792—121 years ago, on the 14th day of 
April, Congress by a mandatory act made it the duty of consuls 
and vice consuls, where the laws of the country permit, to take 
possession of the personal estate of any citizen who shall die in their 
consulate, leaving there no legal representative, partner in trade, 
or trustee by him appointed to take care of his effects. (See vol. 1, 
Stat. L., ch. 24, p. 255.) 

This mandatory act has never been repealed. It is known in the 
Revised Statutes as sections 1709 and 1710, and is in the following 
words, to wit: 

Sec. 1709. It shall be the duty of consuls and vice consuls, where the laws of the 
country permit: 

First. To take possession of the personal estate left by any citizen of the United 
States, other than seamen belonging to any vessel, who shall die within their consulate, 
leaving there no legal representative, partner in trade, or trustee by him appointed 
to take care of his effects. 

Second. To inventory the same with the assistance of two merchants of the United 
States, or, for want of them, any others at their choice. 

Third. To collect the debts due the deceased in the country where he died, and pay 
the debts due from his estate which he shall have there contracted. 

Fourth. To sell at auction, after reasonable public notice, such part of the estate as 
shall be of a perishable nature, and such further part, if any, as shall be necessary for 
the payment of his debts, and, at the expiration of one year from his decease, the 
residue. 

Fifth. To transmit the balance of the estate to the Treasury of the United States, 
to be holden in trust for the legal claimant; except that if at any time before such 
transmission the legal representative of the deceased shall appear and demand his 
effects in their hands they shall deliver them up, being paid their fees, and shall 
cease their proceedings. 

Sec. 1710. For the information of the representative of the deceased, the consul 
or vice consul, in the settlement of his estate, shall immediately notify his death 
in one of the gazettes published in the consulate and also to the Secretaiy of State, 
that the same may be notified in the State to which the deceased belonged; and he 
shall as soon as may be, transmit to the Secretary of State an inventory of the effects 
of the deceased, taken as before directed. 

For these services a fee, which is official, is fixed by the President 
of the United States, by authority of law (see sec. 1745, Rev. Stat.). 

The President is authorized to prescribe such regulations, and 
make and issue such orders and instructions, not inconsistent with 
the Constitution or any law of the United States in relation to the 
duties of all consular officers (See sec. 1752, Rev. Stat.) 

The President has prescribed a table of official fees to be charged 
by consuls for their services. The fee for settling an estate (i. e., for 
performing the duties prescribed by sections 1709 and 1710, Revised 
Statutes), is fixed by a tariff of official fees, revised to take effect 
November 1, 1906, amended by Executive order of June 7, 1909, 
published in the “ Diplomatic and Consular Service of the United 
States,” corrected to March 14, 1913, page 15 thereof, fee No. 12. 
This fee is $2 for each $100 of value or fraction thereof. 

If part of such estate shall be delivered over before final settle¬ 
ment, $1 for each $100 of value or fraction thereof, to be charged on 
the part so delivered over as is not in money , and $2 for each $100 
of value or fraction thereof on the gross amount of the residue. 


122 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


If among the effects of the deceased are found certificates of foreign 
stocks, loans, or other property, SI f r each $100 of value or fraction 
thereof on the amount thereof. 

No charge will be made for placing the official seal upon the per¬ 
sonal property or effects of such deceased citizen, or for breaking or 
removing the seals. (Fee No. 12, tariff of official fees in force June 
7, 1909.) 

Before entering upon the duties of the office of consul general, 
at Shanghai, Amos P. Wilder took and subscribed the oath pre¬ 
scribed by section 1757, Revised Statutes (23 Stat. L., 21), and 
executed a bond in a penal sum not less than his annual salary 
(see Rev. Stat. 1697), which bond is deposited with the Secretary of 
the Treasury. (Rev. Stats. 1697-1698.) 

By his said oath of office the said Amos P. Wilder, among other 
things, swore and subscribed as follows: “I will well and faithfully 
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. 
So help me God.” 

Having taken this oath of office, and having been instructed in 
“the duties of the office” on which he was about to enter, in that 
he was given copies of all circulars of instructions relating to his 
office to date of appointment, as well as a copy of the United States 
Consular Regulations of 1896, he forthwith proceeded to violate his 
oath. 

A copy of said regulations is in the library of the United States 
consulate at Shanghai, which regulations set forth in detail the duties 
of the office of consul general, and especially in detail his duties in 
the settlement of estates of citizens dying intestate in China. 

In said consular regulations are set forth a copy of said sections 
1709 and 1710, Revised Statutes. See Consular Regulations, 1896, page 
345, paragraphs 804 and 805; in fact, all the statutes in relation to 
consuls, and also a copy of an excerpt from the opinion of Attorney 
General Cushing (7 Op. Att. Gen., 274), in which it is stated that the 
consul’s “duties are restricted to guarding and collecting the effects, 
and to transmitting them to the United States, or to aid others in so 
guarding, collecting, and transmitting them, to be disposed of pur¬ 
suant to the law of the decedent’s State.” (See United States Con¬ 
sular Regulations, 1896, p. 161, par. 409.) 

Notwithstanding his solemn oath to “faithfully discharge the 
duties of the office” of consul general, his instructions as to those 
duties having been given him as aforesaid, he willfully and unlaw¬ 
fully refused to perform said duties imposed upon him in relation to 
the settlement of estates of citizens dying in China, whereby the said 
fees prescribed by the United States during the term of office of said 
Amos P. Wilder were not collected by him and consequently no 
returns thereof were made by him. 

The said Amos P. Wilder, as well as said Rufus H. Thayer, knows, 
and is charged with judicial knowledge, that the United States as a 
Nation, apart from the individual States, has not made any national 
law defining what constitutes the due execution of a will, the number 
of witnesses necessary to constitute a valid will, the manner of signing 
or sealing, etc. The United States in this respect has never made 
any such law, as it has never made any law of divorce. Such laws 
relating to wills, executors, administrators, and divorce are reserved 
exclusively to the States. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


123 


But as the United States Court for China has failed to exercise a 
supervisory control over the discharge by consuls and vice consuls of 
the duties prescribed by the laws of the United States relating to 
decedents in China, which supervisory control is imposed upon the 
court by the act creating the court, and the court having usurped an 
alleged probate jurisdiction of all estates over S500, leaving all below 
that amount to said Consul General Amos P. Wilder, or his vice 
consul, no inventories of estates have been sent to the Department of 
State, or to the auditor for that department, and hence the account¬ 
ing officers of the Government, as well as the creditors and legal heirs 
in the United States, are at the mercy of said court. 

Such a condition is in plain violation of the laws of the United 
States, as set forth in the Revised Statutes, sections 1709-1710; the 
act of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. L., 814), creating said United States 
Court for China, and the United States Consular Regulations of 1896. 

The Department of State from its organization and the first 
appointment of consuls to the present time has sent written instruc¬ 
tions to its consuls for their guidance. 

These instructions are preserved in the Library of Congress. 
They were published and promulgated as follows, namely: 

1. Consular Instructions, circulars, 1801 to 1815, bound in one 
volume: In those days our consuls were required to wear a uniform, 
which was duly specified in every detail. With this uniform went 
a black cocked hat, cockade, small sword, shoe, and knee buckles 
of gold or gilt. (Circular of 8th Aug., 1815.) 

2. The report of the Secretary of State, Edw. Livingston, sent to 
the Senate March 2, 1833, by President Andrew Jackson, containing 
general instructions to consuls. 

3. The consular regulations of 1855, sent to consuls under a cir¬ 
cular dated June 22, 1855, by W. L. Marcy, Secretary of State. 

The duties of consuls in relation to intestates’ estates is set forth 
in this volume in great detail. (See pp. 28-37 thereof.) 

Under these Consular Instructions of 1855 it is provided inter alia, 
in relation to intestate’s estates, page 29, paragraphs 70 and 71, as 
follows, namely: 

70. An inventory must be taken of all the effects of the deceased, with the assistance 
of two merchants of the United States. * * * 

71. In performing this branch of the consular duty great attention is required; 
merchants, if possible of great respectability, are to be selected as the assistants of 
the consul. Although appraisement is not mentioned in the act, the consuls are 
instructed to have the apparent value of each article affixed to it. 

In a word, the Consular Regulations of 1855, chapter 6, pages 28 
to 37 thereof, contain an excellent brief on the subject of the duty 
of consuls in relation to the effects or estate of an intestate in China, 
where the laws of that country permit the consuls to comply with 
sections 1709 and 1710, Revised Statutes, and the said regulations 
in relation thereto. 

4. This was followed by the regulations of 1870, prescribed by 
President Grant. 

5. The next official edition of the consular regulations was pre¬ 
scribed and promulgated by President Grant, September 1, 1874, the 
same having been transmitted to the consular officers by Secretary 
of State Hamilton Fish under the same date. 


124 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


6. The consular regulations next to issue were those prescribed by 
President Garfield May 1, 1881, and sent by the then Secretary of 
State, James G. Blaine, to our consular officers under the same date. 

7. President Cleveland, under date of February 3, 1888, prescribed 
the next issue of the revised consular regulations and tariff of 
official fees, and these were sent to our consular officers by Secretary 
of State T. F. Bayard under same date. 

8. The last bound collection of consular regulations issued was 
prescribed by President Cleveland, under date of Executive Mansion, 
Washington, December 31, 1896, and was sent to our consular 
officers under same date by Secretary of State Richard Olney. 
Since then certain circular instructions in pamphlet form have been 
sent consular officers from time to time. 

In 1908 there was published by the Department of State a Digest 
of Circular Instructions to Consular Officers, January 1, 1897, to 
May 25, 1908. 

In this digest, page 46, it is stated that the—• 

duty of looking after affairs of deceased citizens is regarded as most important, and 
department enjoins especial care and promptness in all matters connected therewith. 
(Circular Aug. 30, 1900.) 

Further, on same page, is stated that— 

Inventory of effects to be forwarded with notice of death to Department of State. 
(Circular July 20, 1898.) 

In all of the aforesaid consular regulations the duty is imposed 
upon consuls to conserve the estates of intestates, as set forth in 
sections 1709 and 1710, Revised Statutes. These regulations, which 
have the force of law, as provided by section 1752, Revised Statutes, 
are still in force. 

The law creating said United States Court for China (34 Stat. L., 
814) imposing upon that court the duty of “ a supervisory control 
over the discharge by consuls and vice consuls of the duties pre¬ 
scribed by the laws of the United States relating to the estates of 
decedents in China,” is still in force. Hence it is impossible to see 
what excuse said Amos P. Wilder can give for his gross neglect of 
duty, nor can it be seen what reason the said Rufus H. Thayer can 
give for his gross abuse of power in usurping a so-called probate 
jurisdiction; defining what constitutes a due execution of a will, who 
is entitled to be administrator, the succession of property, etc., to 
the exclusion of the law of the intestate’s domicile in his home State, 
his creditors or legal heirs or next of kin therein. 

Under section 1752 of the Revised Statutes— 

The President is authorized to prescribe such regulations and make and issue 
such orders and instructions, not inconsistent with the Constitution or any law of the 
United States, in relation to the duties of all diplomatic and consular officers, the 
transaction of their business, the rendering of accounts and returns, the payment 
of compensation, the safe-keeping of the archives and public property in the hands 
of all such officers, the communication of information, and the procurement and 
transmission of the products of the arts, sciences, manufactures, agriculture, and 
commerce, from time to time, as he may think conducive to the public interest. It 
shall be the duty of all such officers to conform to such regulations, orders, and 
instructions. 

The above section 1752, Revised Statutes, is set forth in the 
United States Consular Regulations of 1896 as paragraph 847, page 
355, thereof, said regulations being House Document No. 303, Fifty- 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 125 

fourth Congress, second session. Copies of same are in the hands of 
said Wilder and Thayer. 

The official fees above referred to are authorized by section 1745, 
Revised Statutes, which is in the following words: 

Sec. 1745. The President is authorized to prescribe, from time to time, the rates or 
tariff of fees to be charged for official services and to designate what shall be regarded 
as official services, besides such as are expressly declared by law, in the business of the 
several legations, consulates, and commercial agencies, and to adapt the same, by 
such differences as may be necessary or proper, to each legation, consulate, or com¬ 
mercial agency; and it shall he the duty of all officers and persons connected with such 
legations, consulates , or commercial agencies to collect for such official services such and 
only such fees as may be prescribed for their respective legations, consulates , and commercial 
agencies, and such rates or tariffs shall be reported annually to Congress. 

The above section 1745, Revised Statutes, is set forth in the United 
States Consular Regulations of 1896 as paragraph 840, page 354 
thereof. 

It is thus seen that said sections 1745 and 1752, Revised Statutes, 
were brought to the attention of said Consul General Amos P. Wilder 
and of the said Judge Rufus H. Thayer, in said regulations; that 
said Wilder grossly neglected to faithfully perform the duties of his 
office in not carrying out said regulations, to wit, in not administer¬ 
ing the estate of intestates and in not collecting the official fees on 
said estates, wherefore the said Wilder has brought himself within 
section 1735 of the Revised Statutes ajid is subject to removal from 
office, while the said Thayer has made himself liable to removal 
from his high office as judge by the President for cause as well as 
subjected himself to impeachment on this ground as well as those 
stated in the foregoing specifications. 

China in its first treaty with us in 1844 granted us extraterritorial 
jurisdiction within her borders—that is, she granted us the right to 
take jurisdiction of all claims made against citizens of the United 
States in China either by fellow citizens or by subjects of the Em¬ 
peror of China. 

Under this treaty the act of Congress of 1792, sections 1709 and 
1710 of the Revised Statutes, was made applicable to our consuls in 
China, and in taking advantage of the extraterritorial jurisdiction 
thus granted Congress on the 22d of June, 1860 (Stat. L., vol. 12, p. 
72), invested our consuls in that country with certain judicial powers 
iii civil and in criminal cases set forth in sections 4083-4119, Revised 
Statutes. 

In the year 1864 Mr. Anson Burlingame, our minister accredited 
to Peking, China, copied the consular court regulations which had 
been promulgated some years before by our minister in Constanti¬ 
nople, Turkey, known as the Ottoman * dominions, and made these 
regulations applicable to the consular courts organized in 1864 in 
China. (See cfispatch of Anson Burlingame to Secretary of State, 
Bijlo] a tic Correspondence, United States; also compare Appendix 
7, p. 114 et seq., with Appendix 8, p. 148 et seq., of the Report of 
Pic . John Hay, Secretary of State, upon a Tour of Consular Inspection 
in Asm, by Herbert H. D. Peirce, Third Assistant Secretary of State, 
Washington, Government Printing Office, 1904.) 

Our consuls in China from the first time we ever accredited consuls 
to that country to 1898 never usurped the jurisdiction of a probate 
court, such as we understand the term probate jurisdiction in the 


126 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


respective States; neither did the said consular courts, either directly 
or indirectly. 

Under the said act of 1792 (secs. 1709,1710, Rev. Stat.) our consuls 
in China are given a jurisdiction in preserving the personal estate of 
a citizen dying intestate there, resembling somewhat the nature of 
an auxiliary probate jurisdiction in that they are to conserve the 
estate as set forth in said sections 1709 and 1710, and no further; 
that is, they collect the assets, after paying debts, and transmit the 
same to the Treasurer of the United States, to be paid by him, by 
warrant, to the administrator appointed by the probate court of the 
State within the jurisdiction of which the intestate had his domicile 
in law, a domicile which an American citizen could not acquire in 
China. (See Moore’s Digest of International Law, vol. 3, p. 815.) 

This practice by our consuls in China was carried out for many 
years without an exception up to the year 1898, as will be seen by the 
“Record of estates of citizens dying in China,” kept by the Auditor 
for the State and Other Departments. 

A very competent and trustworthy clerk in that office, Mr. Latham, 
has had charge of this record for about the last 40 years, and is there¬ 
fore intimately acquainted with the practice of our consuls in dealing 
with the estates of our citizens dying in China. He will verify the 
above statement—the said record will confirm it beyond a question of 
doubt. 

In the year 1898 is found the first tangible evidence of corrupt 
dealings with the estates of citizens dying intestate in China. It 
was in Shanghai. The estate was that of one Pearl Cleveland, who 
died leaving a large quantity of household furniture and much 
jewelry, including many diamonds and other precious stones. 

A so-called incomplete inventory was sent by the then consul 
general at Shanghai, Mr. John Goodnow. This official, from events 
which were later brought to light in relation to his career before 
being sent abroad, comes well within a story related of Secretary 
Seward, who, when being remonstrated with for retaining a certain 
minister, a discredit to the country, in the Diplomatic Service, said: 

Sir, some persons are sent abroad because they are needed abroad, and some are 
sent because they are not wanted at home. 

A strong fight was made against said Goodnow’s confirmation by 
the Senate. Ex-Senator Washburne, of Minnesota, strongly opposed 
the confirmation. At the time there was some talk of a misappro¬ 
priation by Goodnow of a Republican campaign contribution in the 
form of a $500 check contributed by a certain brewers’ association, 
and prosecution was threatened, but it was deemed best to send him 
abroad as consul general to the most distant post in the service, 
and Shanghai was the post selected. 

Mr. Goodnow, finding that the Department of State had no one 
keeping tab on the returns of estates under settlement, not only 
failed to send the complete inventory of the said Pearl Cleveland 
estate but simply appropriated it to his own use. He did this with 
impunity because the woman was a keeper of a house of ill fame; 
others of her class dared not complain, and if she had any heirs or 
next of kin, they were not notified. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


127 


Emboldened by his success in the Pearl Cleveland estate, Mr. 
Goodnow started a probate jurisdiction peculiar to himself in that, 
where possible, much of the assets of intestates went into his own 
pockets instead of the pockets of the heirs, next of kin, or creditors. 

The said record of estates kept by the Auditor for the State and 
Other Departments shows that said Goodnow sent no inventories of 
estates or accounts, or assets of any nature whatever, to the said 
auditor after the second year of his arrival in Shanghai. Why? 
The laws had not been repealed. 

The beginning of Goodnow’s downfall was his endeavor to get 
control of a large estate left by an American, who died within the 
Chefoo consular district. 

The consul of this district, Mr. John Fowler, opposed Mr. Good- 
now’s attempts to take charge of said estate, All'. Fowler giving as 
his reason for not turning over the estate to Goodnow that sections 
1709-1710, Revised Statutes, imposed upon the said Fowler the duty 
of conserving said estate, and that as he was under bond for the 
faithful performance of the duties prescribed by said law, he declined 
to let Mr. Goodnow take charge of said estate. 

This resulted in Mr. Goodnow making charges against Consul 
Fowler, and set Fowler to looking up Goodnow’s record in Shanghai. 

It did not require much detective work to reveal the many crim¬ 
inal acts of the said Goodnow in China, especially in relation to 
looting of estates of citizens dying intestate and friendless in that 
far-off country. 

Mr. Fowler, after seeking the advice and assistance of an American 
attorney in Shanghai, left that port with a mass of documentary 
evidence to present to the Secretary of State. 

In due time this evidence was presented, together with other 
evidence sent by the said attorney, resulting in the Secretary of 
State sending H. H. D. Pierce, Third Assistant Secretary of State, to 
Shanghai to investigate and report. 

Mr. Pierce went to Shanghai, made his investigation, and returned 
to Washington. 

The result of this investigation was called for by a resolution 
adopted by the House of Representatives on the 8th of March, 
1906, introduced by Hon. John Sharp Williams, of Mississippi, now 
United States Senator. 

The report made by said Mr. Pierce is embodied in House Docu¬ 
ment No. 665, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session. This report 
reveals the character of the man who attempted to set aside the 
law enacted by Congress in 1792, which was followed by all our 
consuls up to Goodnow’s time. 

The scandal revealed by said report was followed by a reorganiza¬ 
tion of the Consular Service ana the creation of a United States 
court for China. 

Mr. Goodnow was openly charged with many criminal acts, in¬ 
cluding blackmail, embezzlement, and looting of estates. The 
American Security Co., of New York, which was on his official bond 
for $6,000, was sued thereon, and after investigation at Washington 
made no contest, but suffered judgment to go by default. 

Mr. Goodnow was asked to resign and his successor as consul general 
at Shanghai was James L. Rodgers, of Columbus, Ohio. 


128 


CHAKGES AGAINST KTJFUS H. THAYEK. 


A few days after Mr. Rodgers’s arrival in Shanghai Mr. Henry H. 
Cunningham, of Belfast, Me., died intestate in Shanghai, leaving 
a large amount of personal property and real estate. 

Mr. Rodgers, who was not a lawyer, having just been appointed 
to the Consular Service, was not familiar with the duties of his office, 
and especially was he incompetent to act as a judge of the consular 
court. A litigant before his court was just as about as apt to pro¬ 
tect his legal "rights as a patient would be apt to save his life who 
was about to undergo a surgical operation for appendicitis at Rodg¬ 
ers’s hands had the Government appointed him a surgeon in the 
Army or Navy, instead of a judge in the Consular Service. He was 
about as ignorant of the science of law as he was of that of surgery. 

Notwithstanding his incompetency to act as judge, he followed 
in the said Goodnow’s footsteps, in that he usurped a probate juris¬ 
diction of the said Henry H. Cunningham’s estate. 

Knowing that the said Cunningham’s next of kin were in the 
State of Maine, over 10,000 miles away, he unhesitatingly gave 10 
days’ notice by publication in Shanghai that he intended to probate 
an alleged will, and did so without any notice having been received 
by the next of kin. 

Many thousands of dollars were diverted from the brothers of said 
Henry C. Cunningham. Letters of administration were issued in 
Maine to a brother of said decedent, and a suit was instituted in the 
United States Court for China against the said Rodgers on his official 
bond for neglect of duty in not complying with sections 1709 and 
1710, Revised Statutes. 

The marshal of said court refused to serve said complaint and sum¬ 
mons on said Rodgers, who later left for Habana, Cuba. These facts 
were reported to the Secretary of State, after which Rodgers waived 
service, and the case came on for hearing. 

Mr. Rodgers’s attorney in Shanghai interposed a plea in abatement 
denying the said administrator, Cunningham, was then or ever had 
been administrator of the effects in China of the said Henry H. Cun¬ 
ningham, and prayed that the said complaint be dismissed. To 
the plea in abatement the said administrator demurred, and upon 
the issue thus joined the court rendered an opinion, entitled in the 
record a “ judgment,” sustaining the plea in abatement, but making 
no further order or judgment in the case. 

The case was then taken on appeal to the United States Circuit 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at San Francisco (see 171 Fed. 
Rep., 835), and there dismissed on the ground that the judgment of 
the United States Court for China was not a final judgment, without 
going at all into the merits of the case. 

Had the administrator filed a replication to said plea in bar instead 
of a demurrer, and had the court rendered a final judgment thereon 
adverse to him, and the case then taken to said circuit court of appeals 
on writ of error instead of writ of appeal, the merits of the case 
would have been considered by said court. 

The said administrator and his brother, the next of kin of said 
decedent Cunningham, took no further steps in China against said 
Rodgers, who is still enjoying a salary of $8,000 a year in the Consular 
Service at Habana, Cuba, after playing havoc with the said estate in 
China. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUEUS H. THAYER. 


129 


Notwithstanding that the said Thayer’s attention was called to the 
decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of United 
States v. Eaton (169 U. S., 351), which related to consular fees and 
to conserving estates of Americans in Siam, a country named with 
China m section 4083, Revised Statutes, in which case the Supreme 
Court rendered the following opinion, namely: 

Section 1709 of the Revised Statutes makes it the “duty” of consuls and vice 
consuls to administer upon the personal estate left by any citizen of the United States 
who shall die within their consulate. 

And notwithstanding the fact that the said Thayer’s attention wa3 
called to sections 1709 and 1710, Revised Statutes, prescribing 
consuls’ duties in relation to citizens dying intestate in China, which 
sections 1709 and 1710 have not been repealed; and further that his 
attention was called to the folio whig decisions of the United States 
Supreme Court, namely, Farrell v. O’Brien (199 U. S., 89, 110), 
Ellis v. Davis (109 U. S., 485), Byers v. McAuley (149 U. S., 608), 
Broderick’s Will (21 Wall., 503), stating the doctrine to be that: 

As the a- thority to make wills is derived from the State and the requirement of 
probate is but a reg lation to make a will effective, matters of pi re probate, in the 
strict sense of the words, are not within the jurisdiction of courts of the United States. 

Further, notwithstanding the said Thayer’s attention was called to 
the following additional authorities, namely: 

It is a rule of private international law that the personal estate, 
personal property, has to be distributed according to the testate’s or 
intestate’s domicile. (Story’s Conflict of Laws, Ch. IX, p. 633; 
Phillimore on Domicile, Ch. I.) 

A citizen of the United States can not become domiciled in law in coi ntries where the y 
enjoy extraterritoriality. (Moore’s Digest of International Law, vol. 3, sec. 487, p. 815.) 

[This Mr. Moore who rendered the above opinion is now the coun¬ 
sellor of the Department of State, and during the absence of Secre¬ 
tary Bryan on the Pacific coast was Acting Secretary of State.] 

The rule for the distribution of the personal effects of any deceased citizen of the 
United States, either at home or abroad, is the law of the particular State of his domi¬ 
cile and can not be changed by act of Congress. (7 Op. Atty. Gen., 243.) 

Section 2 of the act creating the said United States Court for 
China provides that: 

The said United States Court for China shall have and exercise supervisory control 
over the discharge by consuls and vice consuls of the duties prescribed by the law3 
of the United States relating to the estates of decedents in China. (34 Stat. L., 815.) 

Notwithstanding, as above stated, that the said Thayer’s attention 
was specifically called to the foregoing authorities, and notwith¬ 
standing that the very act of Congress creating said court imposed 
upon said court a “supervisory control over the discharge by con¬ 
suls and vice consuls of the duties prescribed by the laws of the 
United States relating to the estates of decedents in China,” the 
said Thayer has usurped a probate jurisdiction in direct violation of 
law (namely, in violation of said Sections 1709 and 1710, Revised 
Statutes) whereby the next of kin and creditors of intestates and 
testates in their domicile in the United States receiving no notice of 
application for alleged probate proceedings in far-off China can not 
contest same, whereby many thousands of dollars are diverted from 
the legal devises, legatees, and next of kin. 

9997—13-9 


130 CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 

The said Thayer seeks to justify his said usurped probate jurisdic¬ 
tion by a long-winded, rambling decision, entitled, “Re probate of 
the will of John Pratt Roberts,” rendered by the said United States 
court for China in an uncontested, ex parte hearing of a petition for 
probate, presented to the said court at the suggestion or said court 
at said Shanghai, China. 

The said decision or opinion in said case is annexed hereto and 
made part hereof, as Exhibit No. 3. 

It will be seen by an examination of said decision that it comprises 
14 legal-cap pages, typewritten, including the syllabus. The follow¬ 
ing facts also appear, namely: 

(a) It nowhere appears in said opinion that the said testate was 
domiciled in any State or Territory of the United States, or else¬ 
where. It simply alleges that the said testate was an American 
citizen who resided in Shanghai at the date of his death. (See 
Exhibit 3, p. 2 thereof.) 

(b) It is also evident that said court “hedges” or appears to be 
in doubt as to the correctness of its said decision, when it uses the 
following language: 

On account of the meagerness of the library available to the court at the present 
time, our investigation will be mainly confined to accounts contained in the com¬ 
mentaries of Blackstone and Kent, and Judge Woerner’s work on the American 
Law of Administration. (See Exhibit No. 3, p. 5 thereof.) 

This doubt is further shown by the following words in said decision: 

It is not, however, specifically provided that the courts of the United States in 
China shall exercise probate jurisdiction. If such jurisdiction exist, it must be by 
virtue of general power under the treaties and of definite power under the common 
law, extended by act of Congress to citizens of the United States and their property 
in China. (See Exhibit No. 3, p. 1 thereof.) 

(c ) The following allegation is also made in said decision: 

The common law courts of England exercised a definite probate jurisdiction pre¬ 
vious to and concurrently with the ecclesiastical courts. (See Exhibit No. 3, p. 1, 
thereof.) 

Tlie remaining portion of said decision is a long argument attempt¬ 
ing to establish as a fact that the common law courts of England, at 
the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, 
exercised a probate jurisdiction and not the ecclesiastical courts. 
Before showing the failure to establish this as a fact, attention will 
be called briefly to the following facts, which have already been dealt 
with at length and supported by the highest authorities, namely: 

(a) The power to make laws governing the execution of a will, or 
the descent of property has not been delegated by the States to the 
Federal Government 

( b ) A citizen of the United States can not acquire a domicile in law 
in a pagan country, where the right of extraterritorial jurisdiction 
has been granted to the United States by treaty 

(c) A pagan country can not confer the right or power to probate on 
ft United States consul or the Court of the United States for China, 
The only jurisdiction possessed by a court is derived by and from 
the power that creates it. Though a court of one nation mav exist 
in another nation, under a treaty this is what is termed extraterri¬ 
torial jurisdiction, but this does not deprive a State of the United 
States of the right to probate the personal property of its citizens 
who die in a pagan country. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


131 


(d) Personal property is distributed according to the law of the 
decedent’s domicile, and as this domicile can not be acquired in 
China, where the United States has an extraterritorial jurisdiction, 
it follows that the laws of descent of the decedent’s domicile govern; 
and as the United States as a nation has no probate laws, and there¬ 
fore its courts have no probate jurisdiction, it follows that the only 
court that has jurisdiction of the personal property of a citizen who 
dies in China is the probate court of the State or Territory in which 
the decedent had his domicile. 

(e) A citizen of the United States can not lose his domicile until 
he acquires another; as he can not acquire a domicile in law in China, 
he retains his domicile in some one State or Territory of the United 
States when he goes to China and can not there expatriate himself. 

The said United States Court for China in said decision seeks to 
give reasons for assuming a probate jurisdiction and for not obeying 
the mandatory law creating the said court, which law specifically 
imposes upon it the duty of u a supervisory control over the dis¬ 
charge by consuls and vice consuls of the duties prescribed by the 
laws of the United States relating to the estates of decedents in 
China” by endeavoring at great length to establish as a fact that at 
the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States the 
common law courts of England had jurisdiction of probate, and there¬ 
fore under section 4086 of the United States Revised Statutes the 
consular court had probate jurisdiction. 

The said section 4086, Revised Statutes, provided, inter alia, that 
jurisdiction of said consular officers— 

shall in all cases be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United 
States, which are hereby, so far as is necessary to execute such treaties, respectively, 
and so far as they are suitable to carry the same into effect, extended over all citizens 
of the United States in those countries, and over all others to the extent that the terms 
of the treaties, respectively, justify or require. But in all cases where such laws are 
not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish s’ st¬ 
able remedies, the common law and the law of equity and admiralty shall be extended 
in like manner over such citizens and others in those countries; and if neither the 
common law nor the law of equity or admiralty nor the statutes of the United States 
furnish appropriate and sufficient remedies, the ministers in those countries, respec¬ 
tively, shall, by decrees and regulations which shall have the force of law, supply 
such defects and deficiencies. 

The said United States Court for China, in rendering the said 
decision, “Re probate of the will of John Pratt Roberts,” overlooked 
one important fact and two important rules or maxims of law in 
reaching said decision, any one of which established would defeat 
and render fatally erroneous said decision, namely: 

First fact: Had the United States Court for China consulted 
volume 13, page 193, et seq., of the English Statutes Revised, pub¬ 
lished by authority, and containing an act entitled “An act to amend 
the law relating to probates and letters of administration in England ” 
(20 and 21 Viet., ch. 77, sec. 3), enacted August 25, 1857, the said 
court would have seen it was a fact that probate before said date 
and from time immemorial, at said date, and up to the time of said 
act taking effect, on the 1st day of January, 1858, was vested in 
ecclesiastical courts and not common-law courts. That said act 
abolished testamentary jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts and 
created one probate court, called the court of probate, having its 
principahregistry in London, and district registries under the control 


132 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


of the court of probate at various places in England, respectively 
mentioned in Schedule A, attached to said act. 

From the time of the sealing and delivery of the Magna Charta, 
June 19, A. D. 1215, by King John at Runnymede, granting the 
great safeguards of life, liberty, and property demanded by the 
barons of England, down to January 1, 1858, probate was vested in 
ecclesiastical courts. 

These courts followed the civil law adopted by the ecclesiastics 
from the Pandects of Justinian, and the proceedings in the ecclesias¬ 
tical courts were regulated according to the practice of the civil and 
canon law, or rather by a mixture of both corrected and new, 
modeled by their own particular usages. (Blackstone’s Commen¬ 
taries, Book 3, star p. 100.) 

It would follow, therefore, that an act of Parliament of Great 
Britain is a fact; that its recital of the fact that probate up to the 1st 
day of January, 1858, was in the ecclesiastical courts, was and is an 
undisputed, an incontestible, and conclusive fact, binding upon any 
court of the United States upon the production of an authenticated 
copy of said act of Parliament, if not under the general rules of 
evidence of judicial notice, as a public, historical fact. 

Second. Rule or maxim of law — u Expressio unius est exclusio 
alterius This maxim, like all rules of construction, is applicable 
under certain conditions to determine the intention of the lawmaker 
when it is not otherwise manifest. What is expressed is exclusive 
only when it is creative, or in derogation of some existing law, or of 
some provisions in the particular act. The maxim is applicable to 
a statutory provision which grants originally a power or right. In 
such cases the power or right originates with the statute and exists 
only to the extent plainly granted, and if the statute provides the 
mode in which they shall be exercised, that mode must be pursued, 
and no other. This conclusion is almost self-evident, for since the 
statute creates and regulates there is no ground for claiming or pro¬ 
ceeding except according to it. (Sutherland on Statutory Construc¬ 
tion, sec. 325, p. 410, and cases therein cited.) 

The said section 4086, Revised Statutes, specifically enumerates 
the sources of jurisdiction of the said consular officers as follows, 
to wit: 

(a) The laws of the United States, where suitable to carry out or 
to execute the terms of our treaty with China, are extended over all 
citizens of the United States in China; 

(b) Where the laws of the United States are not adapted to the 
object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable 
remedies the common law; 

(c) The law of equity; and 

(d) The law of admiralty; and if neither the common law, nor the 
law of equity, or admiralty, nor the statutes of the United States, 
furnish appropriate and sufficient remedies, 

(e) The minister in China shall by decrees and regulations which 
shall have the force of law, supply such defects and deficiencies. 

Here we have five distinct enumerations of sources of jurisdiction. 
The laws of the United States do not and can not provide for probate 
of estates of citizens of the several States—this power or right being 
reserved to the several States; the common law does not embrace 
or provide for probate courts as we have seen above; the law of 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


133 


equity does not, nor does the law of admiralty; nor has the minister 
accredited to China ever attempted to decree what shall constitute 
the due execution of a will or to decree or enact probate laws, nor 
could he lawfully do so. 

So much of said section 4086, Revised Statutes, which empowers 
the minister to China to make decrees and regulations which shall 
have the force of law is void, for the reason that, as Judge Cooley 
said in his treaties on Constitutional Limitations: 

One of the settled maxims of constitutional law, is that the power conferred upon 
the legislature to make laws can not be delegated by that department to any other 
body or authority. Where the sovereign power of the State has located the authority, 
there it must remain; and by the constitutional agency alone the laws must be made 
until the constitution itself is changed. The power to whose judgment, wisdom, and 
patriotism this high prerogative has been intrusted can not relieve itself of the respon¬ 
sibility by choosing other agencies upon which the power shall be devolved, 
nor can it substitute the judgment, wisdom, and patriotism of any other body for 
those to which alone the people have seen fit to confide this sovereign trust. 

Judge Cooley supports the above maxim by copious excerpts from 
Locke on Civil Government. (See Cooley’s Constitutional Limita¬ 
tions, 3d ec , pp. 127-128, star, p. 117.) 

There was a special reason for Congress in not mentioning probate 
or divorce in the sources of jurisdiction conferred upon consuls in 
China and other countries in which we have extraterritorial juris¬ 
diction granted by treaty. 

The reason for not mentioning probate and divorce is obvious. 
Neither one of these powers is granted to the Federal Government 
by the Constitution, directly or by implication, to carry out any dele¬ 
gated power, but these powers are reserved to the respective States. 
Hence the maxim Expressio unius est exclusio alterius is applicable 
to said section 4086, Revised Statutes, and excludes divorce as well 
as probate jurisdiction from the list of enumerated powers conferred 
upon consuls in China, and therefore from the jurisdiction of the 
United States Court for China, which took over the jurisdiction of 
the consular courts in cases involving more than $500. 

By Article VI of the Constitution it is provided that: 

This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pur¬ 
suance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of 
the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State 
shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the con¬ 
trary notwithstanding. 

No question can arise as to the fact that acts of Congress stand 
under the Constitution on an equal footing, and that the last expres¬ 
sion of the Federal will must prevail—that is, if there are two acts of 
Congress on the same subject and they conflict the last one enacted 
prevails. 

There is no conflict between said section 4086, Revised Statutes, 
sections 1709 and 1710, Revised Statutes, and the act of June 30, 
1906 (34 Stat. L., 814), creating the said United States Court for 
China. But assuming arguendo that there is a conflict between said 
section 4086 (enacted June 22, 1860, 12 Stat. L., 72) and said act of 
June 30, 1906, and that under the common law probate courts 
derived their jurisdiction and were in fact common-law courts 
instead of ecclesiastical courts, yet by section 2 of the act of June 30, 
1906 (34 Stat. L., 814), creating said United States Court for China 
the following duty is imposed on said court, namely, to wit: 


134 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


The said United States Co rt for China shall have and exercise s pervisory control 
over the discharge by consi ls and vice cons Is of the d ties prescribed by the laws 
of the United States relating to the estates of decedents in China. 

What laws of the United States? Why, sections 1709, 1710, and 
1711 of the Revised Statutes. If not these sections, what other sec¬ 
tions of the Revised Statutes ? The answer is clear and simple: 
There are no other sections of the Statutes on the subject referred to 
in said section 2 of the said act of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. L., 814), 
and the conclusion is equally clear and simple, namely: It is the 
duty of the said Rufus H. Thayer, as judge of said court, to obey, 
execute, and carry out the mandatory law laid down in said section 2 
of said act creating said court and exercise the supervisory control 
over consuls and vice consuls therein referred to, instead of taking 
away from them the estates or preventing them from obeying said 
sections 1709, 1710 and 1711 and taking unto himself and usurp¬ 
ing a probate jurisdiction, under a pretended claim of jurisdiction 
derived from and under color of the common law, thus violating 
Article VI of the Constitution of the United States, which makes the 
laws made in pursuance thereof the supreme law of the land which 
judges shall be bound thereby; in violation also of said sections 1709, 
1710, and 1711, Revised Statutes, and of his oath of office. 

The said United States Court for China, in seeking to bolster up its 
alleged reasons why the probate courts of England were common-law 
courts instead of ecclesiastical courts, delibeiatelv and premeditatedly 
goes out of its way to attack the Roman Catholic Church and its 
clergy, and therefore to offer insult to its some fifteen millions of 
members—citizens, taxpayers, and voters of the United States—- 
a church as old as Christianity itself, which teaches the same truths 
and principles all over the world and on which the sun never sets. 

It is difficult to see how any administration in power can keep 
such a man as a judge of the United States Court for China after these 
facts have been brought to its attention, which it is the object of 
these charges so to do. 

In rendering said decision, the court said: 

The Popish clergy took to themselves, under the name of the church and poor, the 
whole residue of the estate of the deceased, after the two-thirds of the wife and children 
were divided, without paying even his debts or other charges thereon. This led to the 
enactment of the Statute of Westminster II, directing the ordinary to pay the intestate’s 
debts so far as the goods would extend. But even after this check to the exorbitant 
power of the clergy * * * the residuum after payment of debts still remained in 
their hands. * * * It was the flagrant abuse of this power that again called for 
legislative interposition, etc. 

It is impossible to see the materiality of this attack upon the 
Catholic clergy, in an alleged interpretation of an act of Congress, in 
the United States, where there is not an established church and 
where under the law a citizen is free to worship God as he sees fit 
or to hold any religious belief he sees fit. 

A copy of said decision is filed in the Department of State and is 
known as “Re Probate of the Will of John Pratt Roberts.” The 
said decision, usurping probate jurisdiction as aforesaid, was ren¬ 
dered for the purposes of graft. 

The United States Court for China, in the said case Re Probate of 
the Will of John Pratt Roberts, decides that Congress has created 
two probate courts, one for all estates valued under $500—that is, 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


135 


the consular court—and one for all estates valued over that amount—- 
that is, the United States Court for China. 

In other words, the said Thayer holds that if a citizen dies in 
Shanghai, leaving an estate less than $500, the consular court takes 
probate jurisdiction, and if said citizen had a brother or sister and 
he or she should die leaving an estate valued over $500 the United 
States Court for China takes jurisdiction. Two United States pro¬ 
bate courts, and these two in the same city, both of which proposi¬ 
tions in the face of the Constitution, laws of Congress, and decisions 
of the Supreme Court are absurd. 

The result of said decision is to open up an enormous field for 
graft for the officers of that court, who send no inventories of estates 
to the Department of State, and whose clerk has been under the 
insignificant bond of $1,000 while he has had in his custody many 
thousands of dollars in cash realized from the estates of decedents 
at a time. 

Another result of said decision and the rules of that court is that, 
20 days’ notice of application for probate published in one of the 
Shanghai papers is sufficient notice to the heirs, next of kin, and 
creditors in the United States, who can not even be reached by 
special-delivery letter under 25 days—-for instance, Shanghai to Rock¬ 
land, Me.—and if answered immediately, would take another 25 days 
for the answer to reach Shanghai. 

The absurdity and injustice of such a ruling is shown in the case of 
the probate of the alleged will of Henry H. Cunningham, of Belfast, 
Me. This was a forged will. 

Henry H. Cunningham died leaving two brothers and two sisters in 
Maine, yet the said will was probated in Shanghai after a 10 days’ 
notice was published in a Shanghai newspaper, and over $44,000 gold 
was diverted from the said next of kin, while there was in the United 
States consulate documentary evidence of the transfer of real estate, 
owned by said decedent and held by him under the usual lease in 
perpetuity, to certain parties for which there was no accounting in said 
alleged probate—-while there was strong evidence to support the 
claim that said Cunningham died leaving between 200,000 and 
300,000 taels, equivalent at exchange $0.60 to $120,000 to $180,000, 
lawful money of the United States. 

A brother of the said decedent, one Edward Cunningham, has for 
several years been trying in vain to get some relief from the Depart¬ 
ment of State. He had no notice that his brother was dead, much 
less notice that application had been made for probate of his alleged 
last will and testament until the alleged probate had been granted 
and over $44,000 gold unlawfully diverted. 

In probating estates without giving notice, assuming he has a 
right to a probate jurisdiction, violates one of the most fundamental 
and well-recognized principles of natural law, justice, and universal 
jurisprudence—the right of every person to a hearing. 

It is enough to recall, on this point, that the Supreme Court, in the 
case of Sabariego v. Maverick (124 U. S., 292), quoted from the case 
of Windsor v. McVeigh (93 U. S., 274, 277) the following passage: 

Wherever one is assailed in his person or his property there he may defend, for 
the liability and the right are inseparable. This is a principle of natural justice, 
recognized as such by the common intelligence and conscience of all nations. A 
sentence of a court pronounced against a party without hearing him or giving him 


136 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of his rights and is not 
entitled to respect in any other tribunal. 

Mr. Justice Story on the same point says, in Bradstreet v. Nep¬ 
tune Ins. Co. (3 Sumn., 600): 

It amounts to little more in common sense and common honesty than the sentence 
of the tribunal which first punishes and then hears the party. 

This also quoted by the Supreme Court in the said case of Saba- 
Tiego v. Maverick (124 U. S., 293). 

It goes without saying that there was raw graft on the proceeds 
of this estate. The Cunningham case is cited to show the crude 
way our Consular Service is managed in the Far East, the absolute 
neglect by consuls to perform the most sacred duty imposed upon 
them by sections 1709 and 1710, Revised Statutes, that of conserv¬ 
ing estates of those who die in China, leaving there no relatives. 

One result of said Thayer’s usurpation of a probate jurisdiction 
in China is that it swells the number of cases that come before his 
court and thus gives a color of a reason for continuing the existence 
of said court, thus making it appear that the court has much litiga¬ 
tion of importance and that it is kept very busy indeed, as claimed 
by said Thayer in a letter dated Shanghai, April 10, 1912, addressed 
to the Secretary of State. (See Exhibit No. 2, pp. 4 and 5 thereof.) 

As a matter of fact, from the time of .Thayer’s appointment as 
judge in March, 1909, to April 1, 1913, he has not averaged 12 
trials a year, and many of these were vagrancy cases, against prosti¬ 
tutes and gamblers, and not one a jury trial. 

That this extraordinary state of affairs actually exists 10,000 miles 
from the seat of the Federal Government, and has existed since the 
alleged reorganization of the Consular Service in 1906, may be seen 
from certified documents under seal of the Departments of State and 
Treasury, hereto annexed. The North China Herald, published 
weekly in Shanghai, China, on file in the Library of Congress, shows 
the number and nature of the cases before the said United States 
Court for China and the testimony taken therein, if any. 

The said certified documents under seal of the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment show that it costs the Government the sum of $30,200 a year 
to run said court, that the Government has expended the sum of 
$200,000 in seven years in salaries and so-called court expenses, 
while the litigation lawfully before that court, not alleged probate 
cases or damage cases against consuls growing out of probate cases, 
could have been settled for less than half of the salary of the said 
Thayer as judge of the said court. 

The Government pays said Thayer $8,000 gold a year, the actual 
purchasing value of which in China is three times as great as it is in 
the United States, and yet the said Thayer does not do one-twentieth 
the amount of work that is done by a circuit judge in the Territory 
of Hawaii at Honolulu, who only receives $4,000 a year, and whose 
living expenses are three times higher then they would be in China. 

It would be interesting to know the reason why there is this remark¬ 
able difference between the salaries of the two judges, especially 
when the judge in Honolulu has so much more work and has to remain 
at his post of duty the year round at $4,000 a year, and the judge in 
Shanghai is enabled to leave his post of duty for six months yearly 
and spend that time in Japan and Europe, and receive $8,000 a year. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS IT. THAYER. 


137 


It would be still more interesting to know the reason for continuing 
the existence of said United States Court for China, if the consuls, 
upon whom are imposed judicial duties by section 4083, Revised 
Statutes, should be required by law, readily enacted, to be lawyers of 
experience and good standing, which would thus save the Govern 
ment $30,200 a year. 

If it were necessary to cite other instances of raw grafting on estates 
by officials of the United States Court for China, and gross neglect 
of duty in respect to estates by consular officials in China, the case 
of the estate of Allie Duncan might be cited. 

She had been notorious on the China coast for years as a keeper of 
a house of ill fame. It was luxuriously furnished, the furniture and 
household goods being owned by her" She was known to possess 
valuable jewelry, diamonds, pearls, and other precious stones. 

It was known to Frank E. Hinckley, district attorney, that this 
woman possessed these goods, and that she was slowly dying from 
cancer. Hinckley was not a lawyer, had never been admitted to 
practice in any Federal or State court, although the act creating said 
court provided that the district attorney should be an experienced 
lawyer of good standing. 

Hinckley held a threat of prosecution over the said Allie Duncan 
for months. During all the time she was slowly dying he was con¬ 
stantly threatening her with imprisonment on a charge of vagrancy 
as a keeper of a house of ill fame. Why he did not carry out his 
said threats, and perform the duties of his office as he represented 
them to her, may best be explained by him. It is well known that 
such women in Shanghai have paid large sums to our judicial officers 
for protection. 

When the said Allie Duncan at last died, the so-called probate 
officers of the United States Court for China, wdio had been expecting* 
and awaiting her death, came down on her house of ill fame, like the 
ravenous vultures hovering and roosting around the Silent Tower 
of Calcutta awaiting for the body of the next Parsee to be deposited 
there by the last funeral ceremonies, and about the time the so-called 
probate officers of said court finished with said estate it was picked 
as dry as the bones of the Parsee dead when the vultures have 
finished with it. 

The said Judge Thayer was in London; the said Consul General 
Wilder was in the United States. 

In the Shanghai daily newspapers appeared the announcement of 
the auction sale of the said Duncan estate, which announcement 
was signed “E. H. Murray, administrator.’’ The said E. H. Murray 
was stenographer and acting marshal of the United States Court for 
China. 

Upon a creditor of said estate seeking through his attorney by 
what authority the said Murray was proceeding as administrator, 
the said Murray stated that he had been appointed administrator by 
cable from London by Judge Thayer. 

The estate was later advertised for sale by a Chinese, the said 
Murray having withdrawn his name as administrator, but not his 
management of said estate. It was finally sold at auction, with the 
exception of certain jewels and precious stones. 


138 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


Friends of said decedent in San Francisco were informed by the 
said alleged probate officers of said court that she had died in abject 
poverty. 

No inventory of the estate which had been so advertised for sale 
was sent to the Department of State as required by law. 

To show the incompetency of said Thayer to act as judge of said 
court, aside from his usurpation of probate jurisdiction, is the case 
of the alleged probate of the estate of one William Blanchard. 

In a communication under date of Shanghai, China, September 19, 
1910, addressed to the Treasurer of the United States, the said F. E. 
Hinckley makes the following remarkable statements (see Exhibit 
No. 1, pp. 101-102 thereof): That the said Blanchard was an 
American citizen, but is unable to give or fails to give the name of 
the State or Territory of which he is a citizen; that said Blanchard 
died the 20th of February, 1908, in London, England; that the said 
Blanchard left an estate in China; that the said Thayer as judge of 
said court had appointed one John M. Dickinson, whom said court 
understood to be a Danish subject, as administrator of said estate; 
that said administrator had paid into court the sum of Tientsin taels 
45,000, equivalent to $29,250 gold at exchange .65, part of the said 
estate; that no will was found, and no heir was found; that an order 
for distribution would be made later. 

A curious incident in this case is that the said alleged adminis¬ 
trator is understood by the said Thayer to be Danish. Aside from 
this, he bears precisely the same name as the consul general who so 
irregularly handled the large estate of Joseph Azarian, amounting to 
over $1,500,000. 

It is remarkable that the said Thayer was ignorant of the fact 
that Great Britain had not surrendered her probate jurisdiction of 
the estate of any person dying intestate in London: it is equally 
remarkable that the said alleged Danish administrator did not at 
once go to the United States consul general in London in February, 
1908, upon the death of the said Blanchard and report said Blanch¬ 
ard’s death to him, so that he might communicate with the English 
probate court, as is usual in such cases, instead of waiting until 
September, 1910—over two and a half years after the death of said 
Blanchard—to seek alleged probate from the United States Court 
for China. It is equally remarkable that the said Thayer was ignorant 
of the fact that even if he had a probate jurisdiction he had no author¬ 
ity or power invested in him to appoint a subject of a foreign country 
an administrator of the estate of an American citizen for one simple 
reason—the said American court had no jurisdiction of a subject of 
Denmark or other foreign country. No legal reason was given by 
the said Thayer why the said Danish subject was so appointed admin¬ 
istrator. It is equally remarkable that the said Hinckley should have 
used in said communication the words “ John M. Dickinson, a friend 
and associate of the deceased, whose nationality is understood to be 
Danish.” The natural construction and meaning of this sentence is 
that the deceased was Danish. But the said Hinckley does not 
mean this, though his loosely constructed sentence so indicates. 
Why did not the said Hinckley cause inquiries to be made at the 
Danish consulate at Shanghai if he had any doubts as to the nation¬ 
ality of the said John M. Dickinson, and why did Thayer appoint a 
man administrator of whose nationality he had doubts. If the said 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


139 


Thayer had no doubts of the said John M. Dickinson’s nationality, 
why was it not alleged specifically? (See Exhibit No. 1, pp. 101-102 
thereof.) 

Numerous other cases might be cited in relation to unlawful acts 
of our Government officials at Shanghai in dealing with estates of 
citizens dying there. This subject may be closed here with citing 
one more case. A young woman, an inmate of a house of ill-fame, 
realizing the errors of her life and wishing to end it all, made a will 
leaving about $10,000 to the daughter born out of wedlock of another 
inmate of the same house. 

Shortly after making the said will she committed suicide by taking 
carbolic acid. Her money and effects came under the control of the 
said E. H. Murray, who was the so-called cabled-appointed adminis¬ 
trator of the Duncan estate. The mother of the said legatee then 
married Mr. E. T. Loureiro, a bookkeeper in the Russo-Asiatic Bank 
at Shanghai, a brother-in-law of John Fowler, many years United 
States consul at Chefoo, China, and now our counsul at Foochow, 
China. 

The legatee’s stepfather, the said E. T. Loureiro, a subject of 
Portugal, then sought to secure the money thus left to his wife’s 
young daughter, in order to invest it in aid of her education and 
support, and being unable to get any satisfaction from said Murray, 
sought legal advice. The circumstances under which he married, 
the source of the legacy, and the notoriety which would follow in 
forcing said Murray to a prompt settlement led the said Loureiro 
to submit to the said Murray and to his exorbitant so-called fees, 
although the said Loureiro bitterly complained of the action of the 
United States court in this case. Probably the said Murray, the 
said Wilder, the said Hinckley, and the said Thayer may throw 
some light on this case, as well as the aforesaid cases, and incident¬ 
ally they might explain why the clerk’s and marshal’s accounts 
only refer to “estates” or probate cases by docket numbers, instead 
of giving the names of the citizens who have died in China; why 
they have recourse to this secrecy, as they have suppressed the 
inventories of the said estates in violation of law. 

This is not the first time I have come from China to present 
charges of corrupt conduct against judicial and consular officers, as 
will be seen by the said Peirce report. Of this report the New York 
Sun of March 30, 1906, says: 

A SCANDAL EAST OF SUEZ. 

It was optional with Secretary Root to send to the House of Representatives the 
report of Third Assistant Herbert H. D. Peirce upon the consulates in the Orient 
which he inspected. As originally drawn the resolution “directed ” the Secretary of 
State to furnish the results of Mr. Peirce’s inquiries and observations, which were 
known to be sensational. It had leaked out. On March 8 the resolution was amended 
so as to request compliance ‘ 4 if not incompatible with the public service.’ ’ Evidently 
Mr. Root did not think the service would be damaged by the seamy revelations, 
except in one instance, which must have been unprintable, for he suppressed it. 
Not only does the Secretary approve of publicity, but he intimates that the tale of 
consular lapses from grace is not half told. He really seems glad to let Congress 
know the worst, as the only way to bring it to its senses as the accomplice before the 
fact. 

Who are responsible for vagabond and grafting consuls, loose fish, incompetents, 
and raffish fellows in the service if not Congressmen, whose influence puts them 
there, and has kept them “east of Suez,” where they recognize no commandments 


140 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


and scorn the business code? So Secretary Root let Congress know the truth, but 
not all the truth, for, in the words of Artemus Ward, that would be “2 mutch.” Says 
the Secretary, with a cynical relish in the equities of the affair: “All of these cases 
show the necessity of a regular inspection service to keep the department advised 
whether the consuls are doing weil or ill in their distant stations. An occasional 
brief visit like that of Mr. Peirce to a few consulates is quite insufficient.” 

It is no violation of confidence to say that the Hon. Herbert H. D. Peirce is not a 
Sherlock Holmes nor by temperament a severe critic. Sharper eyes would have 
seen more than he did, and a shrewder talent for inquisition would have made the 
indictment darker. But he did not have to spy or ferret; the whole business East 
rose at him and dinned things into his ears. Some of the black sheep are out now, 
but the mischief has been done; it will take years of the square deal and the simple 
life to remove the stain on the national escutcheon. One consul was generally drunk 
and had no morals or business honesty when he was sober. There are some ugly tales 
told about him. The habits of another were disgraceful; everywhere Mr. Peirce 
heard how bad they were; the man made even the East smell worse. Another consul, 
a robust sinner, had a list of charges against him as long as a trade catalogue; he carried 
things with a high hand; he was a law unto himself; he bestrode the East like a 
colossus with a cinch; the fellow must have taken as long as Lucifer to fall. Others, 
none too good, but having some regard for the Ten Commandments, are underscored 
by Mr. Peirce as not inspiring confidence, or at the best as not being useful in their 
“present capacity.” It is clear the tolerant Third Assistant Secretary was shocked 
by the secrets the East gave up as he passed by. 

Let us hope that Congress will take the lesson to heart. 


Those who seek redress before the present United States court for China, are at a 
greater disadvantage than those who sought redress before the consular court, the 
predecessor of this court, as corrupt as that court was. (See said Peirce[s Report.) 

Under the then consular court, litigants had the benefit of assessors to sit with the 
consul, and they performed duties similar to petit jurors, while the consul was under 
a heavy bond when he performed judicial duties, and held liable for all negligences 
and misconduct while so acting judicially. (See secs. 4110 and 1697, Revised Stat¬ 
utes.) But under the present United States court for China, the said Thayer has 
unlawfully denied jury trials in all felony cases, and common-law civil cases, has 
unlawfully usurped the province of a jury, as well as usurped a probate court juris¬ 
diction, and is under no bond whatever to protect litigants against his negligences 
and misconduct in office. 

In order to protect litigants before the consular courts in the future, that is, to give 
them the benefit of consuls learned in the law, instead of incompetents, as at present, 
Hon. William Hughes, Senator from the State of New Jersey, introduced in the Senate 
recently the following bill: 

“ [S. 2877. Sixty-third Congress, first session.] 

A BILL To amend an act entitled “ An Act to carry into effect provisions of the treaties between the United 
States, China, Siam, and other countries, giving certain judicial powers to ministers and consuls or other 
functionaries of the United States in those countries, and for other purposes,” approved June twenty- 
second, eighteen hundred and sixty. 

“Be it enacted by the Senate and Home of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled , That ministers, consuls, or other functionaries qf thie United 
States invested with judicial authority in countries with which the United States now 
has or hereafter may have extraterritorial jurisdiction, granted by treaty, shall be law¬ 
yers of experience and good standing. 

George F. Curtis. 

Washington, D. C., September 15, 1913. 






EXHIBITS. 


141 
















EXHIBITS. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 1.] 

United States of America, 

Treasury Department, 

April 10, 1913. 

Pursuant to section 882 of the Revised Statutes, I hereby certify that the annexed 
are true copies of accounts and documents of various officers relating to the United 
States Court in China, now on file in this department. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Treasury 
Department to be affixed, on the day and year first above written. 

[seal.] Jno. S. Williams, 

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. 

W. W. S. 

W. 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 2.] 

[Certificate No. 4837.] 

Aggregate to date for the fiscal year 1909. 

Judge (disbg. clerk, $7,333.23; dft., $666.66).$8,000.00 

Attorney. 4, 000. 00 

Clerk. 3,000. 00 

Marshal. 3,000.00 

Stenographer. 1, 234. 94 

Rent. 780.10 

Furniture. 1, 800. 00 

Expenses of judge and attorney on circuit. 760. 54- 

General expenses. 7,000. 00 


29, 575. 58 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 3.] 

[Certificate No. 7179.] 

Aggregate to date, June 30, 1910,Jor fiscal year 1910—Settled with the officers of the court. 

Judge. .*. $7,333.34 

Attorney. 4, 000.00 

Clerk. 2,750.00 

Marshal. 1> 250.00 

Stenographer.'. 925.00 

Rent..... 981.32 

Court expenses. 5, 827.49 

Circuit expenses, judge and attorney. 005. 60 

Disbursed by Thomas Morrison, court expenses. 712.07 


24, 384. 82 
143 























144 


CHARGES AGAINST EUEUS H. THAYEB. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 4.] 

[Certificate No. 8631.] 

Aggregate to date , June 30 , 1911, for fiscal year 1911—Settled with officers of court. 


Judge. $8,000.00 

Attorney. 3, 669. 43 

Clerk. 2, 833. 34 

Marshal. 3, 000. 00 

Stenographer. 1, 715. 00 

Rent. 994.43 

Court expenses. 4, 505. 20 

Circuit expenses. 445.16 

Disbursed by Thomas Morrison. 405. 88 


25, 568. 44 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 5.] 

[Certificate 11277.] 

Aggregate to date , June 30/12, fiscal year 1912, settlement with officers of the court. 


Judge.. $8,000.00 

District attorney. 4, 000. 00 

Marshal. 3, 000. 00 

Clerk. 3, 000. 00 

Stenographer. 1, 800. 00 

Rent. 2, 204. 30 

Court expenses additional disbursed by Thos. Morrison, $104.30. 7, 603. 44 

Circuit expenses. 311. 82 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 6.] 
[Voucher No. 1.] 


29, 919. 56 


United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, China. 

Received of M. Hubert O’Brien, special disbursing officer of the Department of 
State for the United States Court for China, the sum of Mexican dollars two thousand 
four hundred fifty-seven and no/100 ($2,457.00), being gold one thousand dollars 
($1,000.00), converted at the Government rate of exchange for the quarter ending 
June 30th, 1909, of .407, in payment on account of my salary as judge of the United 
States Court for China for said quarter. 

Dated, May 25th, 1909. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge of the United States Court for China. 

Check No. 66364. 

Dated, Shanghai, China, May 25th, 1909. 

Drawn on International Banking Corporation, Shanghai, China. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 7.] 
[Voucher No. 2.] 


United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, Chinct. 

Received of M. Hubert O’Brien, special disbursing officer of the Department of 
State for the United States Court for China, the sum of Mexican dollars two thousand 
four hundred fifty-seven and no/100 ($2,457.00), being gold one thousand dollars 
($1,000.00), converted at the Government rate of exchange for the quarter ending 
June 30th, 1909, of .407, in full payment of the balance due me on account of my 
salary as judge of the United States Court for China for said quarter. Dated: Shang¬ 
hai, China, June 30, 1909. 


(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 
Judge of the United States Court for China. 

Check: Nos. 66397 and 67303. 

Dated: Shanghai, China, June 22nd & 30th, 1909. 

Drawn on International Banking Corporation, Shanghai, China. 





















CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


145 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 8.] 

[Voucher No. 12, for the quarter ending Sept. 30, ’09.] 

United States Court for China. 

Shanghai, China, July 31, 1909. 

Received of Wong Soong Dong, compradore of the United States Court for China, 
the sum of gold six hundred and fifty dollars, in payment on account of my salary as 
judge of the United States Court for China for the quarter ending September 30th, 

I hereby certify that said amount is due and owing to me at the date hereof, and has 
not, nor any part thereof, been paid from any other source. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge of the United States Court for China. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 9.] 

[Voucher No. 38, for the quarter ending 30 Sept. ’09.1 

United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, China, August 31st, 1909. 

Received of Wong Soong Dong, compradore of the United States Court for China, 
the sum of gold six hundred and fifty dollars, in payment on account of my salary as 
judge of the United States Court for China for the quarter ending September 30th, 
1909. 

I hereby certify that said amount is due and owing to me at the date hereof, and has 
not, nor any part thereof, been paid from any other source. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge of the United States Court for China. 

At 416—Mex. $1,562.50. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 10.] 

[Voucher No. 75 for the quarter ending 30 Sept. ’09.] 

United States Court for China, 
Shanghai, China, September 30, 1909. 

Received of Wong Soong Dong, compradore of the United States Court for China, 
the sum of gold seven hundred dollars, in full payment of balance due me on account 
of my salary as judge of the United States Court for China for the quarter ending 
September 30th, 1909. 

I hereby certify that said amount is due and owing to me at the date hereof, and 
has not, nor any part thereof, been paid from any other source. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge of the United States Court for China. 

Mex. $1,682.69. 


Mexican $1,622.07. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 11.] „ 

[Original. Voucher No. 309A.] 

United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, China, May 31,1910. 


RECEIPT. 


Received of F. E. Hinckley, disbursing officer for the court, by compradore order 
No. 45, the sum of Mexican one thousand six hundred and twenty-two and 7/100 dol¬ 
lars ($1,622.07), in full of my account for salary as judge of the United States Court 
for China from May 1 to 31, 1910. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge of the United States Court for China. 


9997—13—10 


146 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 12.] 

[Voucher No. 344 for the quarter ending June 30,1910.] 

United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, China , June 30, 1910. 

Received of F. E. Hinckley, special disbursing officer of the United States Court 
for China, the sum of gold six hundred sixty-six and 67/100 (666.67) dollars, in pay¬ 
ment on account of my salary as judge of the United States Court for China for the 
quarter ending June 30, 1910. 

I hereby certify that said amount is due and owing to me at the date hereof and 
has not, nor any part thereof, been paid from any other source. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge of the United States Court for China. 

@411 Mex. $1,622.07. 

June 30, 1910. 

Paid by c/o, 66 and 67. 

F. E. Hinckley, Disbursing Officer. 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 13.] 

[Original voucher No. 380, for the quarter ending September 30, 1910.] 

United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, China, July 31, 1910. 

Received of Wong Soong Dong, compradore of the United States Court for China, 
the sum of gold six hundred sixty-six and 66/100 ($666.66) dollars, in payment on ac¬ 
count of my salary as judge of the United States Court for China for the quarter ending 
September 30, 1910. 

II hereby certify that said amount is due and owing to me at the date hereof and has 
not, nor any part thereof, been paid from any other source. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 
Judge of the United States Court for China. 

Mex. 1,568.61. 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 14.] 

[Original voucher No. 414 for the quarter ending September 30,1910.] 

United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, China , August 31, 1910. 

Received of Wong Soong Dong, compradore of the United States Court for China, 
the sum of gold six hundred sixty-six and 67/100 ($666.67) dollars, in payment on 
account of my salary, as judge of the United States Court for China for the quarter 
ending September 30, 1910. 

I hereby certify that said amount is due and owing to me at the date hereof, and 
has not, nor any part thereof, been paid from any other source. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge of the United States Court for China. 

Mex. 425 equals 1,568.64, 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 15.] 

[Original voucher No. 430 for the quarter ending September 30,1910.] 

United States Court for China, 
Shanghai, China, September SO, 1910. 

r Received of Wong Soong Dong, compradore of the United States Court for China, 
the sum of gold six hundred sixty-six and 67/100 ($666.67) dollars, in payment on 
account of my salary as judge of the United States Court for China for the quarter 
ending September 30, 1910. 

I hereby certify that said amount is due and owing to me at the date hereof and has 
not, nor any part thereof, been paid from any other source. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge of the United States Court for China. 

$1,568.64 Mex. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


147 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 16.] 

[Original voucher No. 466.] 

RECEIPT FOR SALARY. 

United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, China, October 81, 1910. 

Received from D. A. Wilson, junior, special disbursing officer of the United States 
Court for China, by compradore order No. 140 on the compradore of the court, Mexican 
fifteen hundred seventy-two and 31/100 ($1,572.31) dollars, equivalent to gold six 
hundred sixty-six and 66/100 ($666.66) dollars, at the Treasury rate of .424, for the 
December quarter, 1910, in full payment of my salary to date as judge of the United 
States Court for China at the rate of gold $8,000.00 a year. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge United States Court for China. 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 17.] 

[Original voucher No. 713.] 

RECEIPT FOR SALARY. 

In the United States Court for China, 
Voucher No.-. Shanghai, China, October 13, 1911. 

Received from Daniel A. Wilson, junior, special disbursing officer of the United 
States Court for China, by compradore order No. 233 on the compradore of the court, 
the sum of Mexican one thousand five hundred seventy-six & 05/100 ($1,576.05) dollars, 
equivalent to gold six hundred sixty-six & 67/100 ($666.67) dollars, at the Treasury 
rate of .423 for the quarter ending September, 1911, in full payment of my salary as 
judge of the United States Court for China for the month of September, 1911, at the 
rate of gold $8,000.00 per year. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge United States Court for China. 

[Exhibit No*. 1, page 18.] 

[Original voucher No. 723.) 

RECEIPT for salary. 

United States Court for China, 

Voucher No.-. Shanghai, China, October 31, 1911. 

Received from Daniel A. Wilson, junior, special disbursing officer of the United 
States Court for China, by compradore order No. 237 on the compradore of the court, 
Mexican, one thousand six hundred two and 55/100 ($1,602.55) dollars, equivalent to 
gold six hundred sixty-six and 66/100 ($666.66) dollars at the Treasury rate of .416 
for the quarter ending December 31, 1911, in full payment of my salary as judge of 
the United States Court for China, for the month of October 1911, at the rate of gold 
$8,000.00 per year. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge United States Court for China. 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 19.] 

[Original voucher No. 916.] 

RECEIPT FOR SALARY. 

United States Court for China, 

Voucher No. 916. Shanghai, China, May 31, 1912. 

Received of Daniel A. Wilson, junior, special disbursing officer of the United States 
Court for China, by compradore order No. 280 on the compradore of the court, Mexican 
one thousand four hundred fifty-two & 44/100 ($1,452.44) dollars, equivalent to gold 
six hundred sixty-six & 67/100 ($666.67) at the Treasury rate of .459 for the quarter 
ending June 30, 1912, in payment of my salary as Judge of the United States Court 
for China for the month of May, 19] 2, at the rate of gold $8,000.00 per year. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge United States Court for China. 


148 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 20.] 

[Original voucher No. 929.) 

RECEIPT FOR SALARY. 

United States Court for China, 

Voucher No. 929. Shanghai, China, June 30, 1912. 

Received of Daniel A. Wilson, junior, special disbursing officer of the United 
States Court for China, by compradore order No. 282 on the compradore of the court, 
Mexican one thousand four hundred fifty-two & 44/100 (1,452.44) dollars, equivalent 
to gold six hundred sixty-six & 67/100 ($666.67) at the Treasury rate of .459 for the 
quarter ending June 30, 1912, in payment of my salary as judge of the United States 
Court for China for the month of June, 1912, at the rate of gold $8,000.00 per year. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge United States Court for China. 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 21.] 

[Voucher No. 947.] 

RECEIPT FOR SALARY. 

United States Court for China, 

Voucher No.-. Shanghai, China, July 31, 1912. 

Received of Daniel A. Wilson, junior, special disbursing officer of the United States 
Court for China, by compradorfe order Nc. 287 on the compradore of the court, Mexican 
thirteen hundred eighty-eight & 88/100 (1,388.88) dollars, equivalent to gold six hun¬ 
dred sixty-six & 66/100 (666.66), at the Treasury rate of 48, for the quarter ending 
September 30, 1912, in payment of my salary as judge of the United States Court for 
China for the month of July, 1912, at the rate of gold $8,000.00 per year. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge United States Court for China. 

[Exhibit No* 1, page 22.] 

[Voucher No. 968.] 

RECEIPT FOR SALARY. 

United States Court For China, 

Voucher No.-•„ Shanghai, China, August 31, 1912. 

Received of Daniel A. Wilson, jumor, special disbursing officer of the United States 
Court for China, by compradore order No. 288 on the compradore of the court, Mexican 
thirteen hundred eighty-eight & 90/100 ($1388.90) dollars, equivalent to gold six 
hundred sixty-six & 67/100 ($666.67) at the Treasury rate of 48, for the quarter ending 
September 30, 1912, in payment of my salary as judge of the United States Court for 
China for the month of August, 1912, at the rate of gold $8000.00 per year. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge United States Court for China. 

Mexican $1388.90. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 23.] 

[Voucher No. 987.] 

RECEIPT FOR SALARY. 

United States Court for China, 

Voucher No.-. Shanghai, China, September 30, 1912. 

Received of Daniel A. Wilson, junior, special disbursing officer of the United States 
Court for China, by compradore order No. 289 on the compradore of the court Mexican 
thirteen hundred eighty-eight & 90/100 ($1388.90) dollars, equivalent to gold six 
hundred sixty-six & 67/100 ($666.67) dollars at the Treasury rate of 48, for the quarter 
ending September 30, 1912, in payment of my salary as judge of the United States 
Coi rt for China for the month of September, 1912, at the rate of gold $8000 00 per 
year. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge United States Court of China. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


149 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 24.] 

[Original.] 

RECEIPT FOR SALARY. 

United States Court for China, 

Voucher No. 1035. Shanghai, China, October 31, 1912. 

Received of Daniel A. Wilson, junior, special disbursing officer of the United States 
Court for China, by compradore order No. 305 on the compradore of the court, Mexican 
one thousand three hundred sixty & 53/100 (1,360.53) dollars, equivalent to gold six 
hundred sixty-six & 66/100 ($666.66) dollars at the Treasury rate of 49 for the quarter 
ending December 31, 1912, in payment of my salary as judge of the United States 
Court for China for the month of October, 1912, at the rate of gold $8,000.00 per year. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge United States Court for China. 


No. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 25.] 
[Original voucher #426.] 
VOUCHER FOR RENT. 


Shanghai, September 30, 1910. 

Received of Wong Soong Dong, compradore, United States consul general at Shang¬ 
hai, the sum of two hundred & fifty United States currency dollars in full for rent 
(for the quarter ending this day) of rooms in Nos. 35 & 36 Whangpoo Road, which 
are devoted solely to the business of this consulate general. 

Per pro Ward, Probst & Co. 

(Signed) T. Rarde. 

Approved Sept. 30, 1910. 

D. A. Wilson, Jr. 

$250.00 

At 586 taels 426.62. 

At 74 Mex. $576.51; at 425 g. $245.02. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 26.] 
[Voucher No. 614. Original.] 


VOUCHER FOR RENT. 

Voucher No. 514. 

No.-. 

Shanghai, December 31, 1910. 

Received of Wong Song Dong Comp’d, United States consul general court at Shang¬ 
hai, the sum of two hundred and fifty, United States currency, dollars, in full for rent 
(for the quarter ending this day) of rooms in No. 35-36 Whangpoo Road, which are 
devoted solely to the business of this consulate general & court. 

Per pro. Ward, Probst & Co., 
(Signed). P. Rarde.(?) 

Approved Dec. 30, 1910. 

D. A. Wilson, Jr. 

Gold $250.00. 

At 585 taels 427.35. 

At 753 Mex. $567.53, at 424 U. S. $240.63. 


150 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 27.] 

VOUCHER FOR RENT. 

Voucher No. 572. 

No.-. 

United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, March 29 th, 1911. 

Received of Wong Soong Dong, compradore, United States Court for China at 
Shanghai, the sum of two hundred fifty & no/100 dollars, in full for rent (for the quarter 
ending this day) of rooms in No. 36 Whangpoo Road, which are devoted solely to the 
business of this consulate general. 

(Signed) Probst, Hanbury & Co., Ltd. 
H. Hanbury, Director. 

Approved, March 29, 1911 

D. G. Wilson, Jr. 

$250.00. 

At 604 = TLS.= 413.91. 

For March quarter, 1911. 

At 736 Mex., $562.38; at 438 gold, $246.32. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 28.] 

[Voucher No. 636.] 

VOUCHER FOR RENT. 

No.-. 

Shanghai, June SO, 1911. 

Received of Wong Soong Dong of the United States Court for China, at Shanghai, 
the sum of two hundred & fifty & no/100 United States currency dollars in full 
for rent (for the quarter ending this day) of rooms in 36 Whangpoo Road, which are 
devoted solely to the business of this consulate general. 

(gigned) Probst, Hanbury & Co., Ltd., 
H. Hanbury, Director. 

Gold. 

$250.00/100. 

At 583 equal to taels 428.82. 

At 742, $577.92; at 423 gold, $244.46. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 29.] 

[Original voucher No. 665.] 

VOUCHER FOR RENT. 

Voucher No. 665. 

No.-. 

Shanghai, August 9, 1911. 

Received of Wong Soong Dong, compradore, United States consul general at Shang¬ 
hai, the sum of eighty-three & 33/100 United States dollars in full for rent (for the 
quarter ending this day) of rooms in No. 35, 36 Whangpoo Road, which are devoted 
solely to the business of this consulate general. 

Probst, Hanbury & Co., Ltd., 
(Signed) H. Hanbury, Director. 

Approved August 9.1911. D. A. Wilson, Jr. 

$83.33. 

At 583 taels, $142.93. 

At 75, $190.57; at 423 G, $80.61. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


151 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 30.] 

[Original voucher No. 703.] 

VOUCHER FOR RENT. 

No.-. Shanghai 'September 30, 191U 

Received of Wong Sung Dong, compradore, United States Court for China, at Shang¬ 
hai, the sum of four hundred gold dollars, in full for rent (for the quarter ending this 
day) of rooms No. 12, Whangpoo Road, which are devoted solely to the business of 
this court. 

China Realty Company, Ltd. 
(Signed) J. Rave (?), 

Manaqinq Director. 

$400.00/oo gold. 

At 583 taels 686.11. 

At 752 $912.38 at 423 G. $385.94. 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 31.] 

[Original voucher No. 779.1 
VOUCHER FOR RENT. 

NO. -. 

Shanghai, December 31, 1911. 

Received of Wong Soong Dong,-Comp’rd, United States consul general at Shanghai, 
the sum of one thousand forty-five & 30/100 Taels, in full for rent (for the quarter 
ending this day-). 

(Signed) China Realty Company, Ltd., 

F. J. Raven (?), Managing Director. 

$Tls. 1,045.30/xx. 

At 77 Mex. $1,357.53 at 416 G. $564.73. 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 32.] 

[Voucher No. 864.] 

VOUCHER FOR RENT. 

No.-. 

Shanghai, March 30, 1912. 

Received of Wong Soong Dong Comp, United States Court for China, at Shanghai 
the sum of one thousand and one & 67/100 taels in full for rent (for the quarter ending 
this day) of rooms in No. 12 Whangpoo Road, which are devoted solely to the busi¬ 
ness of this court. 

(Signed) China Realty Company, Ltd., 

F. J. Raven, (?) Managing Director. 

$1,001.67. 

At 742 Mex. $1,349.96 at 4.34 G. $585.88. 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 33.] 

[Original voucher No. 928. Voucher No. 928.] 
voucher for rent. 

No.- 

Shanghai, June 29, 1912. 

Received of Wong Soong Dong Compradore, United States consul general at Shang¬ 
hai, the sum of nine hundred forty-seven & 87/100 taels, in full for rent (for the quarter 
ending this day) of rooms in No. 36 Whangpoo Road, which are devoted solely to the 
business of this court. 

China Realty Company, Ltd. 
(Signed) T. J. Raven (?), 

Managing Director. 

T. $947.87/100. 

At 741 Mex., $1,279.18. 

At 459 G. $587.14. 


152 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 34.J 
[Original voucher No. 693.1 

Shanghai Municipal Council. 

Received payment-of general municipal rate at 12% per annum for f quarter year 
ending September 30, 1911, amounting to taels 48.00 @ 754 $63.66 @ 423 G. $26.93 
on house and tenements No. 12 Whangpoo Road, occupied by U. S. court for China. 

25/9/1911. 

(S’gd) Geo. E. Marshall, 

Tax Collector. 

GENERAL MUNICIPAL RATE FOR QUARTER YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1911. 
[Declared due July 1,1911.] 

I, G. E. Marshall, by authority of the municipal council, do hereby demand pay¬ 
ment of general municipal rate at 12% per annum for § quarter ending September 30, 
1911, amounting to taels 48.00, on house and tenements No. 12 Whangpoo Road, 
occupied by U. S. court for China, assessed at taels 2,400. 

Shanghai, 25/9/1911. 

This rate to be paid within fourteen days from date of presentation of demand note, 
agreeably with resolution passed at the meeting of ratepayers held on March 21, 1911. 

(Signed) W. E. Leveson, 

Secretary. 

Subsidiary coin will be received at the current market rate. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 35.] 

[Original voucher No. 772. Voucher No. 772.] 

Shanghai Municipal Council. 

Received payment of general municipal rate at 12% per annum for quarter year 
ending December 31, 1911, amounting to taels 72.00, at 77 Mex. $93.51 @ 416 G. 
$38.90, on house and tenements No. 12 Whangpoo Road, occupied by U. S. court for 
China. 

13/12/1911. 

(Signed) Geo. E. Marshall, 

Tax Collector. 

GENERAL MUNICIPAL RATE FOR QUARTER YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1911. 

[Declared due October 1,1911.] 

I, G. E. Marshall, by authority of the municipal council, do hereby demand payment 
of general municipal rate at 12% per annum for quarter ending December 31, 1911, 
amounting to taels 72.00, on house and tenements No. 12 Whangpoo Road, occupied 
by U. S. court for China, assessed at taels 2,400. 

Shanghai, 5/10/1911. 

This rate to be paid within fourteen days from date of presentation of demand note, 
agreeably with resolution passed at the meeting of ratepayers held on March 21, 1911. 

(Signed) W. E. Leveson, 

Secretary. 

Subsidiary coins will be received at the current market rate. 



CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


153 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 36.] 

[Original voucher No. 808. Voucher No. 808.] 

Shanghai Municipal Council. 

Received payment of general municipal rate at 12% per annum for quarter year 
ending March 31, 1912, amounting to taels 72.00 at 743 Mex. $96.91 @ 4.34 G. $42.06 
on house and tenements No. 12 Whangpoo Road, occupied by U. S. Court for China. 

ol/ll, 1912 . 

(Signed) Geo. E. Marshall, 

Tax Collector. 

GENERAL MUNICIPAL RATE FOR QUARTER YEAR ENDING MARCH 31, 1912. 

[Declared due January 1, 1912.] 

I, G. E. Marshall, by authority of the municipal council, do hereby demand pay¬ 
ment of general municipal rate at 12% per annum for quarter ending March 31, 1912, 
amounting to taels 72.00, on house and tenement No. 12 Whangpoo Road, occupied 
by U. S. Court for China, assessed at taels 2,400. $72.00 

O. K., D. A. W., Jr. 


„ , . January 31, 1912. 

Shanghai, 31/1/1912. 

This rate to be paid within fourteen days from date of presentation of demand note, 
agreeably with resolution passed at the meeting of ratepayers held on March 21,1911. 

(Signed) W. E. Leveson, 

. . . Secretary. 

Subsidiary coins will be received at the current market rate. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 37.] 

[Original voucher No. 882. Voucher No. 882.] 

Shanghai Municipal Council. 

Received payment of general municipal rate at 12% per annum for quarter year 
ending June 30, 1912. amounting to taels 72.00 at 744 Mex. $96.77 @. 459 G. $44.42, 
on house and tenements No. 12 Whangpoo Road, occupied by U. S. court for China. 

15/4/1912. 

(Signed) Geo. E. Marshall. 

Tax Collector. 

GENERAL municipal rate for QUARTER YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1912. 

[Declared due April 1,1912.] 

I, G. E. Marshall, by authority of the municipal council, do hereby demand pay¬ 
ment of general municipal rate at 12% per annum for quarter ending June 30, 1912, 
amounting to taels 72.00, on house and tenements No. 12 Whangpoo Road, occupied 
by U. S. court for China, assessed at taels 2,400./. 

Shanghai 15/4/1912. 

(Signed) O. K., Dawy 

This rate to be paid within fourteen days from date of presentation of deman 1 
note, agreeably with resolution passed at the meeting of ratepayers held on March 21, 
1912. 

(Signed) W. E. Leveson, 

Secretary. 

Subsidiary coins will be received at the current market rate. 


154 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 38.] 

Marshal’s fees and costs, criminal docket, July 14, 1909. 


Mar¬ 

shals’ 

No. 

Courts’ 

No. 

Defendant. 

Fees. 

Costs. 

Receipts 

paid. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

Mex. 

Rate. 

Gold. 

Mex. 


1 

1 

R. J. McCord. 

16.75 






12.02 


2 

2 

W illiam N el son. 

12.30 



11.40 



11.40 

11.40 

3 

5 

A. Sangeland and A. 











Martinez 

8 50 








4 

3 

S. R. Price 

6. 20 








5 

4 

Victorino T orres.... 

2.50 








6 

6 

Charles A. Dibble 

9.80 








7 

7 

Alice Duncan 

3 80 

.554 

6.86 

1.25 



6.86 


8 

8 

Dorothy Grant... 

3.65 

.554 

6.59 

1.00 



6.59 


9 

9 

Minnie Kingsley.. 

3 65 

.554 

6.59 

.75 



6.59 


10 

10 

Emily Moore.. 

3.65 

.554 

6.59 

1.00 



6.59 


11 

11 

Mavinp, Tjvingqton 

4.65 

.554 

8.39 

1.00 



9.39 


12 

12 

Mona Monteith .. 

3 65 

554 


.75 





13 

13 

Zaza Van Buren. 

1.50 

.554 

2.70 

.75 



2.70 


14 

14 

Alice Sherwood. 

3.65 

.554 

6.59 

.75 



6.59 


15 

15 

Margeret Kendall. 

.65 








16 

16 

Francis S. Mayer. 

.50 








17 

18 

George D. Kenev. 

.50 








18 

17 

B. F. Colvin... 

29.65 



54.60 



54.60 

54.60 

19 

19 

.do. 

4.50 








20 

20 

T. C. Arlington. 

. 50 








21 

21 

H. A. C. Emery and G. 











F. Curtis. 

3.15 





. 15 



22 

22 

O. Bishop and J. C. 











Gould. 

2.50 








23 

23 

James L. MofTet. 

9. 40 








24 

24 

Carl J. Dressner. 









25 

• 25 

H. N. Demenil. 

3. 40 



835.45 





26 

26 

Casebia Flores. 

4. 50 



21.08 

.427 

9. 00 



27 

27 

Wm. Childress. 

29.77 



471.21 





28 

28 

Marion Greenwald. 

4.50 








29 

23 

S. R. Price. 

2.50 



14. 05 

.427 

6. 00 



30 

28 

F. W. Carus. 

2.50 








31 

30 

.do. 

2.50 








32 


Thomas Jones. 

76.00 



778.62 



















367.42 


44.31 

2,193.66 


15.15 

123. 33 

66. 00 


July 14, 1909. Received from clerk of court in payment of above, $57.33. 

(Signed) M. Hubert O’Brien. 


' t 



















































































































CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


155 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 39.] 
Marshals’ fees and expenses , civil actions. 


Mar¬ 

shals’ 

No. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

i 5 
6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 

26 
27 


Clerks’ 

No. 

Plaintiff. 

Defendant. 

Fees. 

Expenses paid 
by clerk. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

Mex. 

Mex. 

2 

H. T. Nelson. 

Francis S. Mayer. 

1.65 

.526 

3.14 



3 

Frazar A Co. 

Boston Standard Co. 

1.65 

. 526 

3.14 





et al. 






7 

Woo Ah Sing. 

C. A. Biddle. 

1.65 

. 554 

2. 98 



2 

H. T. Nelson.. 

Francis S. Mayer_ 

.50 

.526 

.95 



8 

Roy Chan Radomski 

R. C. Radomski. 

1.65 

.526 

3.14 



9 

Davis & Thomas.. . 

S. Zimmerman.. . 

1.65 

. 554 

2.98 



10 

P. H. Irwin. 

C. W. Mead et al.. 

2.65 

.554 

4.78 



7 

Woo Ah Sung. 

C. A. Biddle. 

.50 

.554 

.90 



12 

J. J. Connell. 

B. F. Dalv_ 

1.65 

.554 

2.98 



10 

P. H. Irwin... 

C. W. Mead et al.. 

1.65 

. 554 

2.98 



13 

E. L. Mondon . 

C. A. Biddle 

1.65 

.554 

2.98 



14 

.. .do. 

B. L. O’Connor. 

1.65 

.554 

2.98 



10 

P. H. Irwin. 

C. W. Mead. 




26. 25 

26.25 

11 

R. R. McDermid 

A. T. McDermid.. 

1.65 

.554 

2.98 



15 

Eaura Brown 

S. R. Price.. 

1.65 

. 554 

2.98 



17 

Shanghai Gas Co 

C. A. Biddle . 

1.65 

. 554 

2. 98 



18 

Chen Wong Tai 

A. W. George A Co 

1.65 

. 554 

2.98 



13 

E. L. Mondon 

C. A. Biddle. 

.50 

. 554 

.90 



12 

.T. I. Cnnnell 

R. F. Daly. 

1.65 

.554 

2.98 



20 

Chartered Bank etc 

R anger Trad inf Co 

.50 

.554 

.90 



19 

W A F.TUens et a,l 

American Trading Co 

1.65 

.543 

3.04 



21 

Oscar Schreyer 

China and Java Trad- 

1.65 

.554 

2.98 





ing Co. 






23 

S H Comstock 

F Waterhouse A Co... 

1.65 

.543 

3.04 



24 

do . 

Boston S. S. Co. 

1.65 

. 543 

3.04 



17 

Shanghai Gas Co 

C A. Biddle 

.50 

. 544 

.90 



28 

Toft? A: Read. 

Thomas Suffert. 

1.65 

.543 

3.04 

.83 

.83 

30 

J. H. Brown et al... 

S. R. Price. 

1.65 

.543 

3.04 

.28 

.83 


Carried forward 


38.15 


69.71 

27.36 

1.66 




i 


1 


27.91 


























































































156 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 40.] 


Mar¬ 

shals’ 

No. 

Clerks’ 

No. 

28 

33 

29 

27 

30 

34 

31 

36 

32 

37 

33 

38 

34 

39 

35 

41 

36 

36 

37 

42 

38 

18 

39 

34 

40 

43 

41 

45 

42 

46 

43 

47 

44 

48 

45 

49 

46 

50 

47 

51 

48 

52 

49 

53 

50 

54 

51 

55 

52 

56 

53 

57 

54 

76 

55 

58 

56 

59 


Plaintiff. 

Defendant. 

Fees. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

Br’t for’d 


38.15 


69.71 

A. W. Cunningham. 

J. L. Rodgers. 

50 

543 

.92 

Racine Ackerman & 

F. Waterhouse & Co.. 

.50 

543 

.92 

Co. 





Chu Kun Kee. 

A. W. George & Co_ 

1.65 

543 

3.04 

Woo Ah Sung et al.. 

C. H. Biddle et al. 

3.30 

526 

6.27 

Wong Sung Tien.... 

John Green. 

1.65 

526 

3.14 

C. L. Ziiz. 

P. W. Irvine et al. 

2.65 

526 

5. 04 

F. W. Brooks. 

.do. 

2. 65 

526 

5.04 

Lee Zung Dong. 

A. W. Danforth. 

2.15 

526 

4.09 

Woo Ah Sung et al.. 

C. A. Biddle et al. 

.25 

526 

.48 

C. A. Froman et al.. 

Thos. L. Cobbs. 

1.65 

526 

3.14 

Chen Wong Tai. 

A. W. George & Co.... 

.50 

554 

.90 

Chu Kun Kee... 

.do. 

16.07 

526 

30. 55 

Shanghai Land In- 

H. A. McConnell. 

2.15 

526 

4.09 

vestment Co. 





Hongkong Milling 

Fraxar <fc Co. 

2. 65 

526 

5. 04 

Co. 


n 



Chui Cheu Tsuan... 

Geo. F. Curtis. 

1.50 

542 

2. 77 

Tsu Yue San. 

George Mooser. 

1.80 

542 

3.32 

J. Kruse. 

A. Stein, etc. 

1.65 

542 

3.04 

China Imp. A Ex. 

L. C. Gillispie & Sons. 

1.50 

542 

2. 77 

Lumber Co. 





Lan Ching Tsau. 

Southern Methodist 

.50 

542 

.92 


Mission et al. 




L. Barbaur & Sons.. 

B. Roth & Co. 

1.65 

542 

3.04 

C. A. Englebract_ 

Harry J. Black. 

1.65 

466 

3.54 

Carlowitz & Co. 

.do. 

1.65 

466 

3.54 

Brown-Burke. 

James W. Ragsdale... 

1.50 

443 

3. 39 

Grusburg & Co. 

Zimmerman & Co. 

1.50 

443 

3.39 

Zue Hoong Sue et al. 

Jno. S. Dooly et al_ 

2.80 

443 

6.32 

Luckan & Co. 

Pustau & Co. 

.50 

443 

1.12 

Wong Lu Chong.... 

C. E. L. Munyon. 

1.50 

427 

3.51 

J. C. Epperly et al.. 

J. J. Connell. 

1.65 

427 

3.86 

Ah Choy. 

J. J. Woodruff. 

1.65 

427 

3.86 



99.47 


190.76 


Expenses paid 
by clerk. 


Mex. Mex. 


27. 36 27. 91 


.28 

.28 

.95 


. 28 


.28 


.28 



.19 



67.81 

98.36 


.19 


.28 


2.77 


.28 


120.00 


120.00 


.67 


.35 


218.92 


249. 32 ’ 























































































CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


157 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 41.] 


Mar¬ 

shals’ 

Clerks’ 

No. 

Plain tifl. 

Defendant. 

Fees. 

Expenses paid 
by clerk. 

No. 



Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

Mex. 

Mex. 



Br’t. For’d_ 


99. 17 


190.76 

218.92 

249.32 

57 

61 

International Bank- 

Pustau <fc Co. 

.50 

427 

1.17 

58 

62 

ing Corp’n. 

M. J. Connell. 

J. C. Epperly et al_ 

Zimmerman & Co. 

2.65 

427 

6.20 



59 

55 

Grusburg & Co. 

1.10 

443 

2.48 


- 

60 

63 

J. C. Epperly. 

Chong Lai Kee. 

J. J. Woodruff. 

1.50 

427 

3.50 

11.95 

11.95 

61 

65 

P. Zimmerman. 

1.65 

415 

3.97 

62 

64 

Zn Yueng Ching et al 
Y. C. Tong. 

.do. 

1.80 

415 

4.34 



63 

66 

F. W. Sutterle... 

1.65 

415 

3.97 



64 

67 

Cheng Mao. 

Markt & Co.... 

1.65 

415 

3.97 



65 

68 

C. Moller. 

L. L. Hopkins_ 

1.65 

396 

4.16 



66 

69 

A. R. Johnstone.... 

Geo. B. Rea. 

1.65 

396 

4.16 



67 

70 

Ling Yue Dong. 

Carl L. Seitz. 

1.65 

396 

4.16 



68 

71 

Lily Snethlege. 

.do. 

1.65 

396 

4.16 



69 

72 

Edward Edwards... 

R. H. Graves et al.... 

6.10 

396 

15.39 

1.20 


70 

70 

Ling Yue Dong Est.. 
Estate Margeret Ort- 
wine est. 

Estate Hetherington 
Ortwine. 

Carl L. Seitz. 


71 

58 


2.65 

443 

4.89 



72 

59 


2. 65 

443 

4.89 












129.97 


262.17 
232.07 

232.07 

261.27 







494. 24 
261.27 









232.97 




July 16, 1909. Received of F. E. Hinckley, clerk of court, Mexican two hundred 
and thirty-two and 97/100 dollars ($232.97) in full payment balance due as above. 

M. Hurbert O’Brien, 
Marshal United States Court for China. 


Shanghai, China, July 17, 1909 
























































158 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. 


© 

6C 

cS 

Ph 


© 

+3 

• rH 

rO 

•rH 

1 

w 


£ 

>-H 

a 

o 

a 

o 

a 

h 

Ph 

a 

o 

o 

co 

a 

Eh 

H 

Eh 

co 

Q 

a 

eh 

I—t 

a 

a 

a 

w 

EH 

pH 

o 

a 

H 

W 

co 

a 

H 

a 

a 

W 

a 

o 

a 

- 

a 

Eh 

a 

a 

a 

o 

a 

a 

o 

a 


OS 

<©> 

Os 

>H 

H-J' 

co 

>-H 

<so 

*- 

rO 


^3 

co 

ts 

s 

<w 


K 

<3 

s 

©H 

<4S 

sS£ 

SO 

k. 


£ 

S 

HO 


e 

I 


a 

£ 


GO 

e 

I 

?s 

*S> 

so 

k 

i 

a 


to 

HO 

I 


£> 

B 

® 

> 

o 

fc 

B 

o 


CO 

W 


© co 

P ° 
O P 

£ < 
£ £ 
SO >-H 

H S' 

m G 
a 
o 


m 


f 


gg’Sl’S 

o.® 

a -_ CS'O CD 

oP a o 

<q © 03 ® 


r-i CD iT,rrH ^ 
^ <D b£i^ > 

o «£; Jh .!h 
£ o3 c3 ® 

H°-§ 1 


o 

® 

ts 

3 

ce 

fc 


d 

C8 

r o 

a 

J2 

® 


C8 

£ 


ea 

d 

•Sa 

C3+H 

«.a 

t3 ®? 
d pl, 

® o 

s 

C3 

5? 


o 
® ’ 


bJO 

.3 

id? 

® 


a 

£ 

•cS 

JhO 

§•2, 

5“ 
s J 
w « 

<w 
Q c 

a -2 

<ioo 
£ *e 
P ^ 

S 


a 

r< 

ta 

• rH 

m 


CD CD 

as 

3 S—i 

o 


oo 

© 


© 

o 

55 


THAYER. 





















CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


159 


CO 

<D 

SP 

Ph 


o 

Jz; 


X* 

• f-H 

rP 

X 

W 


<J 

♦-H 

w 

o 

PS 

o 

PS 

& 

o 

o 

OQ 

w 

<1 

H 

GO 

Q 

W 

H 

*—« 

£ 

& 

H 

M 

H 

O 

d) 

W 

m 

PS 

<1 

a 

H 

a 

H 

O 

a 

a 

h 

w 

a 

o 

a 

a 

o 

•- 


^3 

*8 

8 

•S 

C 




•22 

•<s> 

S 

Co 


e 

ps 

HO 

»$ 


C3 

•S 

6 

r> 

*«*» 

C5 

8 

Q 

8 

•<o 

**C® 

Ci 

,o 


HO 

c5 

co 

■s 

•S 

•<s> 

t§ 


CO 

P4 

c8 

a 

© 

PS 


m 

W 

CQ 

-< 

o 

Hd 

hH 

> 

hH 

O 


Is'Sg’S 

02 bX) d ►> 
O CS u, . .Jh 
d- a) 

5 ord g 5 

<S O 03 £ 


9 <£ ^ ^ 
3.2 £?§£ 

g c3 c3 ® 




d 

CO 

H-. 

O 

© 

f-H 

3 

55 


+p 

d 

c3 

TS 

d 

0? 

H-. 

© 

"d 

•— 

o 

© 

a 

o3 


03 

s • 
■Be 

C8-JJ 

a.a 

S p. 

© o 

a 

c3 

£ 


bX) 

■5 -S 
©S-g 

S c i 


fr-4 • 

© a> 
rQ 2 

as 

^ «•—H 
£ ° 


co co • 

C 1o w 

~ a ^ 

O 


PH ^ 

3.2 

° fe 

p< 


a.a 


a 


co d 
o3 c3 c3 ^ 

•S-c 

^■g S« «£? 
•a§a|ao 
6 s-a £ ^ 

H-, ©-W 4J S 

°§ftT3p,t 

glS-S-SS 


Cb 



0 



Ob 

• 

O 

>-» 

CO 

<v 

bJO 

HO 

<D 

v-« 

.a 

Co 

«*-< 

CO 


O 

t-4 

pH 


d 

0 

*-> 

»o 

•rH 

HP 

•H 

CO 

.a 

T3 

s 

0 

Q< 

2^ 

8 

.a 

T3 § 


Q 

'S« 



Ph 


s 


CO 


-s 


© 

+-> 

CO 

M 

d 

s 




o> 


00 

<N 


o 

O 


CO 


o 

r-H 

ci 


8 

>^S 

« o 

s l 

Q *8 

« S 

< Cq 

W;g 


Q 

•S 

^ 50 

^ « 
§i 

bo 


02 


o 

*d 


• 

• 

• 

• 

■ 

* CO 

d c8 

0 

0 CO - 
CO 

* a> 

..9 co 

§ 

a 

^ § © 

<3 


a 

a 

^ P 

os bJD *-• 

§.a« 

CS3 

d os 
0 "d © 

'S 

O ^d 

i 

• S3 d 

♦—5 © 0 

• do 

CO 

s 

1 

CO 

d 

d 

c3 

PS 

S-/ 

a 


t-4 

.a 

© 


a 


Sc 

.^h o3 

^ <x> 

§s 

c3 

CO 


o 

Q 

05 


<M 


> 

O 


Hfl 

r- 



































160 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER, 


<X> 

SP 

ft 


o 

! 2 ? 


ft 


< 

z 

ft 

B 

u 

o 

a 

H 

5 

6 
o 
o 

OQ 

w 

Eh 

<1 

H 

O 

w 

ft 

ft 

£ 

& 

w 

w 

H 

a 

c 


< 

B 

GO 

B 

<1 

s 

w 

ffi 

H 

a 

O 

£ 

B 

P 

H 

a 

ft 

ft 

a 

o 

i 

f«=i 
ft 
ft 

o 

a 


Cb 

C> 


co 

<30 

SJ 

rO 


$0 


s 

ft 

ft 

i 


co 

HO 

Co 

g 

Is 

HO 

ft? 


§ 

•S 

S 

•s 

•<s> 

g 

r< 

s 

c 

CN 

cr 

£ 

•c^> 

s 

ft 
■ O 


3 

JD 

'O 

co 

<*> 

HO 

•2 

CQ‘ 

HO 

•<s> 

t§ 


a 

1 

-y> 

.a 

o 

Ph 

p< 

* to 

o W 

o to 

§ ^ 

03 r--\ 

TJ ^ 

s d 

2 > 

u o 

<N 

O 

$ 

ft 


o 

ft 


CO 

a 

© 


co 

O 

PH 


S 8® P’S 
o.£ 

B «s j5 13 § 
<°oa£ 


S g’2_ 1 'S 

d «*- c3 rrt © 

JN § 


2 

CO 

ft« 

O 

© 

ft 

3 

-ft 

d 

£ 


C3 

s 

*<>> 

ftO 
^ ft 

~.o 
£ ^ 
O "£ 

2 s 
d r o 

• ^ 
< e 

HO 

HO 

•<s> 


T3 ^ 
0) *1 

GO 


d 

c3 

73 

a 

«2 

*© 

'C 

ftl 

o 

© 

a 

c3 

£ 


>> 

-ft 

•*H 

"3 

g . 

•Sis 

ce-£ 

-.3 

73 ,2 

a & 

© o 

a 

c3 

fc 


bJD 

O -3 

3C1 

(S*! 

ft 

Pu 


ft . 
© Or 
jQ CO 

3 « 

C O 

D«h 

Z ° 


CO 

cu 

CO 

c5 

CJ 

o 























CHAEGES AGAINST EUFUS H. THAYEE 


161 


iO 

0> 

8P 

ft 


O 

55 

-ft> 

• rS 

hQ 

•rH 

ft 

w 


<1 

5? 

►ft 

w 

o 

« 

o 

p* 

H 

« 

& 

O 

o 

OD 

w 

H 

<1 

Eh 

GQ 

Q 

W 

H 

ft) 

£ 

& 

w 

W 

fe 

O 

>d 

«! 

w 

go 

P5 

a 

w 

w 

Eh 

Ph 

o 

£ 

tf 

& 

H 

W 

P$ 

o 

a 

« 

o 

pH 


Ob 

>*H 


Co 

I 

*X3 

^5 

K 

ft> 

ft 

ft» 

SO 

Q 

s 

ft) 

SO 

ft 

o 


co 

so 

•ft 

3 

CO 


8 

ft 

3 

so 

ft) 


C$ 

8 

•ft 

r< 

O 

•ft 

Q 

C?b 

8 

>o 

o 

CO 

e* 

8 

•ft 

r< 

O 

ft 

< 

so 

5- 

3 

CO 

•a* 

cq 

"C3 


t§ 


CO 

H 

m 

< 

o 

HH 

> 

hH 

O 


CO 

M 

cS 

a 

© 

Ph 


CO 

O 

.9 


"S w'S 

5 05 W) d ►> 

S O ^ _ -ft 

o-Pdo 
<; o ce g 


*d 

© 


T2 

© 


3 § M'S t> 

O «♦_, ft C3 

4°4“f 


P 

CO 

O 

© 

ft 

3 

c3 

£ 


d 

o3 

d 

© 

S-H 

© 

T3 

«*-« 

O 

© 

a 

c3 

£ 


>» 


-ft *td 
c8 -g 

d. s 

"d ^2 
C ft 

© o 

a 

cd 

£ 


ft . 
© © 
O CO 

as 

^5 S-H 
£ ° 


ft 

© 

O 

E 

O 

b£ 

.a 

CO 

ft 

3 

rQ 

.S9 

s 

ci 

Oh 


I> 

o 

O 


© 

fcXD 

ft 

C3 

•c 

o 


ft 

© 

© 

E 

o 

U) 

.a 

CO 


rO 

CO 

•M 

*d 

•ft 

c3 

PH 


to 

co 


CM 


o 

to 


o 

GO 


-ft 

£> 

© 

o 


o 

•d 


C3 -ft 

•§6 
fcn <d 

tg 

a c 

O SH 

H © 

*.a 

© ft 


P3 

.2 
-ft 

c3 

ft 

o 

& 
o 
O 

©5 

•S£ 

•- x 

w 


© 

a 

ft 

© 

a 

a 

•rH 

N 

c3 

ft 

© 

> 


O C3 
c3 ft 

pr. © 

A o 

3 v 
3 o> 

S g 

w.a 

sib 

>>c 

.a a -2 

gr 


© 

a 


ft 

© 

03 

O 

-ft 

© 


CO 

> 

© 

a 

tfj 

a 

O 

co 


i 

© 

•rH 

.59 

ft 

p 

CJ 

^3 


"d 

d 

D 

O 


o 

£ 


O O 
xJ "d 


d 

cd 

Ph 

a 

o 

o 

•a 

N 

"c3 

M 


c3 
• >—< 

CO 

CO 

d 

K 


^ CO ^ 

“ © 


£ d - r 

a s? dp; fc 
25.2 o3 O.® 

» J5 ■ 


© 

•rH 

Ph 


tlo 

m _. j*J 

ft 

rH 

T— ( 

rft 

o> 

o 

o 


d 

Tft 

t-H 

r— 1 

rH 

w' *r—s 

©'S'S 

r>T 

Sf 

•V 

»o 

ccT 

-ft ft 5 ? 


rH 

CM 


n^ § 

2 

• 

& 

rO 

rO 

Mar. 

ft 

du 

© 

[ft 

© 

Ph 

© 

Ph 


»o 

t- 


co 




00 


8 
• cS. 

ft O 

^ ft 

z -s 

C ft 
V) 3 
P3 o 

s° 

^ CO 
ft) 

• so 

C3 

^ so 

.Co 

Q 

ft) 

so 

•ft 


5 


n3 ^ 
CP lo 

e h 
m o 


9997-13- 


•11 



































162 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


CD 

<D 

6D 

c3 

ft 


O 

•rH 

•g 

w 


«< 

►H 

w 

o 

« 

o 

pH 

H 

« 

P 

O 

o 

CO 

w 

< 

H 

OQ 

0 

w 


W 

K 

H 

pH 

o 

►P 

◄ 

w 

OQ 

PH 

«! 

a 

w 

W 

H 

Ph 

O 

£ 

« 

« 

tf 

Ph 

C 

a 

Ph 

O 

Ph 


O 

>h 

Oi 


O 

<^> 

s 

5 

C3 

s 

cm 

so 

■< 

ho 


•3 

•<>» 

i 

s 

1 

■40 

fid 


g 

I 

r< 

O 

•X 

•<s> 

C? 

r< 

C* 

5 

C3 

CQ 

ex 

C5 

I 

6 

HO 

| 

a 

©D 

■S 

OQ 

*^5 

<V 

h3> 

§ 

S 


m 

W 

co 

< 

o 


1/3 

M 

Ui 

o3 


03 

Ph 


co 

O 

Ph 

.a 

Q 


Isis'S 

o«2 

Pc— C3^ 03 

~ Ord d o 
^ '-"ti s a) 


O 03 g 


§ 8 f> _.'S 

I' 2 **- 

s«« g <* 

<< o 


s ® 
8 


o> 

Sm 

3 

4-> 

c3 

fc 


§ 

d 

a> 

<H 

© 

T$ 

4-t 

o 

03 

s 

a3 

5? 


C3 

d . 
.2 te 

H—> *d 

c8-g 

«.s 

03 O 


$3 

£ 


be 

O .3 
©'E'g 

HH> t-r 2 

c«cd g 
Q o 

s-l 

pH 


© 03 
*0 £ 

32 

P «*H 
£ ° 


03 

O 

S 

o 

be 

d 

*«) 

(-4 

d 

nQ 

# GG 

'S 

2 

3 

Ph 


o 

CO 


*0 


,o 

03 

Q 


3 

a 

"d 

d 

d 

HO 

c3 

M 

03 . 

O IS! 

S C3 

S 


M 

03 

a 

<*5 


;d 

o 

> 

o 

© 

r* 

P3 c 

c3 

. o 

w 


o 

H 

05 

rH 

•> 

00 

© 

d 

d 


05 


C$ 

•S 

3^0 

•"S 

'-vP 

o •£ 

2 s 

H -P 
• ^ 




HO 
* «>> 

tS 


C5 
O) r< 

fl S 
02^ 






















CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


163 


O) 

b£ 

c3 

pH 


O 

• rH 

• rH 

rS 

H 


< 

£ 

hH 

a 

o 

a 

o 

pH 

Eh 

« 

P 

O 

o 

go 

w 

Eh 

H 

GO 

Q 

W 

Eh 

>-H 

fc 

& 

w 

a 

Eh 

O 

a 

GO 

§ 

w 

a 

H 

pH 

o 

£ 

a 

a 

Eh 

w 

a 

a 

o 

a 

o 

Ph 


O* 

>H 

#\ 

HO 

o 

rO 


HO 

Ph 

<*> 

CQ 

g 

5^. 

•S 


Oh 

HO 

5*^ 

O 


■S 

% 

co 

£ 

S 

HO 

fc5 


8 

I 

-s£ 

o 

e\ 

•<s> 

O 

r< 

8 

o 

»< 

GQ 

C5 

8 

•<s> 

r< 

O 

5^. 

HO 

s 

5 

CO 

.s 

.s 

00 

B 

•S 

•<s» 

t§ 


go 

W 

GO 

< 

o 

p 

HH 

> 

HH 

o 


CO 

o3 

a 

a 


o 

d 

.2 

+n 

•fH 

CO 

O 

a, 

.2 

A 


gall's 

5 02 bJD d ►> 

S ° a .Sh 

c3 d o> 
<: o c3 ® 


Ii|b| 

a^| -' s 

-< o 


c3 ^ 

8 

Sr 


2 

CO 

o-» 

O 

o> 

(-1 

2 

c3 

£ 


d 

c3 

d 

d 

<D 

o-. 

<D 

d 

*4-. 

o 

<D 

a 

d 

£ 


c3 

d # 

•2?g 

-4-* •'- 

03 tJ 

fl.a 

d ^ 
® o 

a 

c3 

fc 


bi) 

*3 .s 

8 

Q 2 
a 


Sr r/l 

® 8 

CO 

d 2 

a ° 

d o- 

^ o 


Sr 

G) 

O 

£ 
o 
00 

.3 

co 

a 

rO 

•a 

d O 


c3 


O 

d 


o 

d 


O O O 
ddd 


o »o 

O 

O 

10*0 0 

rH CM 

TJH 


lOCON 

CM CM 

CM 

CM 

CM CM 


rO 

<X> 

o 


o 

d 


o 

d 


o 

d 


o o o 
d d d 


d 
c3 

as 

rS ^ 
O O 

mO 


O) 

d 

d 

a> 

a 


©► « 

a ^ 

| C3 

|| 

>£ 


o 

rd 

O 


CO 

o 

o 

a 


Ph 


_ s-. 
d c3 

s§ 

g § 

O 

• °s 



• d o 

^ c3 5 

rd.Q g 
.eg d -S 

ho <D ^ 

S s a 

^ >s ® 

m gn 

9“ ^ a 

gw 

,rH • c3 ^ 

OdW 


o o 

O 

o 

rH r-H 

rH 

rH 

05 05 

05 

05 

r-H rH 

rH 

rH 

F\ 

•\ 


05 X 

lO 

o 

rH CM 

rH 

CM 


bh 

bi) 

d d 

t—i >-a 

d 

<1 

d 

<1 

O rH 

CM 

co 

X X 

X 

X 


o o o 


CM CO 


i©» 

■^5 GQ CO 


^ iQ eO 
X 00 00 


8 

<s> 

•zT^ 

TT ho 

O 

GO S 
dJ O 

^ CO 
* HO 
^ HO 

. cc 
Q B 

HO 

■ C^- 

S 


T* ^ 

a 

•rH ^ 

m ^ 

















































164 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


< 

52 

hH 

w 

o 

« 

o 

G 

H 

G 

P 

O 

o 

w 

<1 

QQ 


W 

K 

H 

G 

O 

£ 

& 

W 

PS 

Ph 

o 

§ 

c 


o 

>-H 

05 


co 

so 

»*o 




^5 

Jg- 

s 

■2 

C5 

3 

CH 

CO 



Q 

.0 


,_, 

W 



06 

H 

HH 

•2 



55 

‘S 


<D 

P 

c*J 

Co 


SP 

W 

> 

GO 

ft 

W 


w 


H 


GO 

rH 

• 

Ph 

HO 

<! 

O 

O 

G 


G 

HH 


◄ 


> 

• rH 
pO 

• rH 

><! 

W 

w 

m 

« 

<1 

§ 

, China- 

HH 

O 


•<s> 

PT5 

3 

C 

CQ 

e 

e 

•<s> 

o 

ho 

s 

£ 

00 

■s 

© 

HO 

CO 

'XS 

4S 

•<s> 

t§ 


CO 

M 

p 

a 

<0 

P5 


CO 

o 

G 

CO 


Iasi's 

oa 

P«*_ P 12 © 
^°0C32 


3 S ^ rrH ^ 

glgS* 

P «_ P 3 © 

8 

s-« 


« OrP 

^ © 


a? 

s- 

9 

-ft> 

P 

£ 


P 

P 

03 

P 

© 

•m 

© 

03 


© 

B 

. P 

5? 


a 

g . 

■■Bs 

08 +J 

«.a 

73 ^ 

® o 

a 

P 

55 


th 

•S -S 
©■S'g 

*«S S 

0 2 
G 


&h • 
© © 

& 5§ 
Bo 

| 0 


-M © 

sa 

3 © 

£g 

2 p 

CO 

P 
TJ 


-4-5 © 

© a 

p s 
cr^ 

© G 

*H P 

CO 

P 

r P 

© * 
copq 

P 

£ 8 W£ 

G P 


©2 

© * 
copq 

P 

P • 

iw 

p^ ■ . 

O _Q <*3 O 

^ O 03 o © 

co 


U1 


> 

o 

o 


"O 

© 

b£ 

p 

,P 

o 


o 

'O 


40 

CO 


o 

05 


© 

G 


o 

T3 


ft 

PQ 


© 

p 

rP 

© 

•H 

a 

a 

o 


rP 

CO 


ft 

G 

'—' 

P 

p 

ft 

O 

s 

G 


rP 

CO 


rP 

CO 


ft 

M 


© 

p 

rP 

© 


PS 


»P 

o 


bo 

© 

rP 

o 

.a 

g 

bo © 

P 8 

© s 

rP ^ 

o 


o 

t-H 

05 

r-H 


© 

o 


o 

rH 

05 

t“H 

w 

40 

8 

ft 


00 


E 

o 

Uj 

.3 

CO 


p 

CO 

"3 

np 

•>-H 

p 

G 


40 

05 


o 

"p 


© 

p 

rP 

© 

i 

© 


a 


© 

co 

© 

.3 

rP 

o 

bJD 

P 

P 

rP 

O 

rP 

o 

Ph 


o 

H 

05 


8 

Q 


« 

ss 

•«s> 

rr ho 

O 

CO s 
•P O 

^ CO 

cu 

• HO 

htH « 

^ HO 

• GO 

^5 

HO 

* <S> 

ig 


2 ^ 
fl 

•rH 

OO ^ 


05 

OO 


































CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


165 


Q) 

to 

c$ 

ft 


O 

• rH 

rO 

•pH 

K 

w 


«< 

5? 

w 

o 

« 

o 

H 

tf 

& 

O 

o 

GO 

w 

H 

H 

00 

Q 

W 

Eh 

NH 

55 

& 

W 

W 

H 

O 

w 

oo 

tf 

◄ 

a 

w 

w 

Eh 

O 

55 

tf 

& 

Eh 

W 

Ph 

o 

a 

Ph 

o 

p* 


>H 


CO 

I 

*X3 

8 

a 

g 

r< 

■HO 

•<s» 

CO 


8 

£ 

3 

■ho 

<© 


e 

■S 

6 

cs 

•< 

8 

C3 

CQ 

cs 

•1 

s 

■HO 

£ 

CO 

■HO 

-S 

&9 

•8 

s 


oo 

H 

m 

o 


> 

HH 

o 


CO 

M 

P 


© 


p 

O 


co 

O 

Ph 

.a 

Q 


Isis'S 

!«_ P "P © 
O rP P O 
© P P 


O' 

a 


a s ® 


P ^ tuo73 £> 
2 v " < J2 P *P 

p v-t P o3 ^ 

3op s 

^ O £ 


© 

S-i 

p 

-*H> 

P 

£ 


P 

73 

P 

© 

Oh 

© 

73 


© 

a 

P 


P 

P . 

Bs 

03 t2 

«..s 

t3 

g P< 

P OH 

© o 


P 

£ 


t£) 

.3 


S'S'g 

q 2 

Ph 


S-h . 
© © 
n co 
P P 
P © 

P «*-H 
£ ° 


© 


TO rH 

2 P 
P © 
Cfe 

© >~H 

U. 3 
+J TO 
03 

73^J 
© ^h 
> 

*H . 

P 

C -J . 

gWt: 

Ph P 

9 

r-j O O 

CO 


S-H 

© 

© 

e 

o 

to 

p 

*co 

s- 

-P 

CO 

•>—• 

T3 

O 


o 

© 


T3 
© 
b£ 
s—< 
03 

M 

Q 


© 

© 

e 

o 

t/ 

p 

•r-< 

CO 

&H 

p 

XJ 

CO 

•^H 

O 


o 

(>i 


o 

00 

o 


•o 

o 


rP 

© 

Q 


o 


O 


-a 


o 

© 

rP^I 

© 


I 

CO 

© 

© 

p 

O 

O 


•HO 


cs 

E- 


P CO 


O 

s 

K*'* 

© 

U& 

p 

2 2 

CO 


© 

o . 

Q.^-v 

2- 

P ^ 

HH w 

P 

^.2 

P CO 

•r-H 

CO 


a 

g 

p 

p 

tf 


CO 


TJ P 

a p 

^5 

C/5 

73 

© 
p ^ 
^ O 

°o 


-M © 
cr rH 

2 S 

p © 

O 

Sh D 
4^ CO 
03 

73^* 

© S 

> 

y . 

© 

co M-t 
P 

P * . 

sat; 

a p 

rP O 

p O © 

CO 


> 

o 

a 


73 

© 

bJO 

s_ 

P 

rP 

o 


»o 

o 


o 

73 


P 

o 

co 

2 

© 


a 


p 

73 

a 


p 

73 


co 

&H 

© 


- .-s 

-f-CrT 

»s rH O HH 

Jp p CO . 

© o pm 

Pbn ^ ^ 

<V ^ S- . 

M PQ 


CO 

Sh 
© 

o • 

_ 2^ 
0^73 -m 
33 P*C 

o 

P _,X! 5(1 

^3 P - © 




w 


^ C M 
O O ^ 

^o. • 


03 

▼*H 

•s 

tO 


03 


00 

Cl 


03 


'^r 

C4 


rO 

© 

pH 


03 

CO 


O 

03 


03 


<M 

03 


co 

03 


C3 

•<s> 

-58 

o t! 

CO 

^ o 

go 

^ co 

. ^ 


Q 

■HO 

Cn 


< 

Q ^ 

HO 

•<s> 

t§ 


70 ® 

CP 

02^ 






































166 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


O 

iO 

© 

SP 

A 


O 

£ 

• -H 
rO 

• rH 

rW 

X 

W 




o 

S 

^3 

£ 

C3 

s 

•40 

o 


S 

5^ 

s 

HO 


c 

•S 

s 

rv 

*<S> 

<3 

s 

C3 

r< 

CQ 

cf 

.§ 

5 

HO 

p 

6 
Co 

HO 

■S 

CQ 

HO 

•<s> 

tg 


CQ 

w 

co 

O 


co 

M 

c3 

a 

© 

P5 


CO 

O 

Ph 

CO 


■£ m »d -g nd 

ll8>§£ 

oJ'U a; 

S » 

<; © c3 £ 


9 eg*© © 

a^j^g 


p 

c3 

'd 

P 

© 

Ox 

© 

T3 

Oh 

O 

© 

£ 

c3 

fc 


C3 

Cl 

5 a 

c.S 

^ rS 

a ^ 

03 o. 

© o 

£ 

o3 

£ 


tc 

O •£ 
-M U S 

=«« g 
ft o 


t- . 
© Cu 
n co 

a * 
6 © 

3 o 
£° 


© 3 

J-H CO 


+-> uJ 


> 
M 


©ffi tJ 


Oh O 

o © 
- © 


8g£ 

-§ crp< 
co 


J-. . 

© . 
o . 

e - 

o . 
bfi > 
C2 o 

‘SO 

H 

2 O 

“-c 

,P © 
^ by) 
'd {2 

•*-» 03 
rP 

PhO 


CO 

• 

Oh 


O 

• 

© 

• 

H 

• 

d 

’. o 

*C3 

5? 

-05 ^ 
rO 
© 


>> 
A § 

*d Ph 

sa 

«5 

c’^ 

CO ►> 

© E> 
a ^ 

2d c3 
OPQ 


; ® 
S-§ 

io 

fp W 

b£§ 

.aw 

rP W) 
O p 

•r- O 

W p 

© s 

Nrp 

COOQ 


05 03 

i—H r-H 

csT i-T 

CM CM 

>>g 

c3 5 

Sh 


Tt< *0 
05 05 


C3 

e 

*cS> 

^ Cj 

QC o 

<3 

co 


CO 

HO 

*C^ 

o ^ 
P r^O 
tfj C3 

• r-< jv 

I 




























CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


167 


< 

2 

>— 

ss 

o 


c> 


ic 

<x> 

to 


C3 


ft 



OS 

c 

H 

£ 

& 

O 

o 

CO 

w 

H 

< 

Eh 

GO 

a 

w 

Eh 

>-h 

2 

& 

w 

S3 

H 

O 

a 

S3 

GO 

PS 

◄ 

a 

w 

S3 

Eh 

fe 

O 

2 

cs 

& 

Eh 

H 

PS 

fe 

O 

a 

os 

c 


ft 

CQ 

s 

«*o 

C3 

i 

o-< 



<3 

»< 

CJi 

s 

e 

r< 


Co 




CO 

•S 

Co 




•<s> 



co 

u 

c3 


© 

c$ 


CO 

o 

©< 

CO 


© 

fx 

0 

-o» 

c3 

2 


o 

c« 

73 

r-< 

<2 

© 

73 

'— 

O 

© 

s 

o5 

2 


03 

fl 

.2 te 

rt3 

fl £ 
73 ®5 

cO 

© o 

§ 

C3 

z 


-w <B 

|I 

3 O) 

© 04 

^ 3 

4^ CO 

c3 

73^ 

l« 

c3 

C • . 

8«t; 

O. =3 

.o<*- o 

3 C O 
CO 


> 

o 


73 

© 

u 

*-« 

03 

pG 

o 


© 

© 


© 


pO 

© 

Q 


c3 

u 

S3 

w 

►"i 

H 


C3 

s 

szT^ 

rr ho 

c ^ 

3 I 

=s° 

^ CO 

* HO 

<* © 

^ HO 

• co 

HO 

•<s> 

S§ 


xr S 

a h 
fcc^ 




c3 

h 

S3 

H 

cd 

K 

a 




© 


CO 
H 
o3 cO 

Q 


bX 

.a 

73 

© 

© 

O 

O 

*-. 

O. 


© 



2 o 


© 

pH 

t>T 


>> 

£ 


© 

© 






























168 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


<N 

© 

SP 

p« 


o 

•rH 

I 

w 


«< 

£ 

#H 

K 

Q 

PS 

O 

ft 

H 

PS 

P 

O 

© 

ec 

ft 

◄ 

H 

CO 

Q 

ft 

H 

*H 

53 

& 

ft 

w 

H 

ft 

o 

ft 

w 

OQ 

PS 

s 

w 

w 

H 

ft 

O 

fc 

PS 

P 

H 

ft 

PS 

ft 

o 

2 

PS 

o 

ft 




CO 

QO 

rO 


SJ 

Cl 

^3 

^5 

g 

Js 

■as 

ft 

a 

s 

Cr< 

<*5 

■s 

ft 

•S2 

S 

co 


s 

g 

HO 

^5 

ftc 


§ 

•S 

s 

•o» 

e 

r< 

8 

OQ 

»N 

<3 

.§ 

s 

ft 

o 


HO 

ft 

| 

CO 

■as 

CO 

^3 

■as 

•o» 

t§ 


GO 

w 

co 

<1 

O 


o 


co 

M 

s 

s 

05 

PS 


CO 

O 

ft 

.% 

P 


§ all's 

o«£g* £ 

G «*-. G 05 
5 O^ G O 
< © G © 


9 © © 05 

O © £^33 > 
2*~ g 

1=! I 


s 

«*—i 

o 

05 

(m 

G 

G 

£ 


a 

03 

tj 

g 

05 

05 

«*—■ 

a 

05 

s 

03 

53 


G 

G . 
.2$G 

-H> — 

08 -g 

C.S 

T3 .2 

g P< 

© H-h 

© O 

a 

03 


bo 

o .a 

st| 

t- 

ft 


© © 

53 

as 

G 

£ ° 


ft 

© 

O 

56 

o 

W> 

G 

$8 

ft 

G 

G5 

GO 

*3 

*G 

A 3 * 
pH 


o 

T3 


o 

X5 


*0 

r- 


*o 

CO 


lO 

CO 


r0 

© 

Q 


o 

'G 


o 

*G 


ft 

*G 
G 
G 

g © 

G 

© ft 
ft GO 
T3 I-H 

^ £?n 

k O 3 

^ot; 
◄ 


s 


G 

G 

ft 

a 

O 

O 

-8 

Ut 

G 

G 

S-H 

ft 


© 

50 
© 

G 

X3 
O 
--' 

G 

o 

2 

bo rd 
G ^ 
G 

O 
<15 
© 


tn •* 
O © 

is ti 

-a- 2 
2 a ‘ 
3w 
•H , !h 
J* 


— 

CQ 


gg S-C w 

S«-c.- 
•chS|| 

w Pi'~ 



H 

»H 

»-H 

r-4 

*-H 

05 

05 

05 

rH 

rH 

H 

•N 

•s 

•s 

CO 

05 

CO 



rH 


« 

• 

-4-> 

> 

> 

o 

o 

O 

o 




00 

05 

05 

05 

05 


G 

•<s> 

o Ti 

co S 
J o 

^ co 

^5 

• HO 

.00 

Q ^3 

^5 

HO 

*<S» 

5 


tj ,2 

P fc 
CO ^ 































CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


169 


CO 

ic 

<x> 

SP 

ft 


O 

4-3 

• ft 

& 

X 

W 


4 

ft 

w 

o 

PS 

o 

H 

PS 

& 

O 

Q 

GO 

W 

H 

◄ 

GQ 

O 

W 

Eh 

ft 

fc 

& 

H 

H 

Eh 

o 

w 

GE 

PS 

◄ 

a 

w 

w 

Eh 

Pi 

o 

a 

PS 

& 

Eh 

W 

PS 

Pi 

O 

a 

ps 

o 

Pi 


o3 

3 

o* 

«H 

o 

73 

P 

© 

o 

43 

rP 

43 

c5 


a 

« 

o 

<D 

ft 

a 

o 


to 

ft 

CO 

H 

o 

ft 

<5 

S3 


2 s 


ft 

o 


CO 

44 

ft 

C3 


ft 


C/3 

o 

Pi 

.29 


Sg’Sg’S 

3.® £?®£ 

a «^_ 0373 © 

o-p g g 

<J © 03 £ 


8 ©_. TB 

® Ef§£ 


= 

P-S 3 ! 

o o> 


p 

C/3 

«—i 

o 

© 

ft 

p 

"3 

£ 


p 

cS 

73 

P 

© 

u_ 

© 

73 

ft 

o 

© 

a 

c3 

£ 


08 

g . 
S3 5 

C8 tS 

«.a 

s a 

© o 

a 

S3 

fc 


to 

o -S 

©to’g 

«« ® 

« 2 
ft 


ft • 
© © 

O C/3 
d C3 
2 © 


73 >■ ' 

© ft ft 
ft © O 

%> « 

S’Sft 

p 

O 43 

©T3 p 

p£ 

^ c 

£43 55 

© CO 
CO © © 

P ft 'C 

© ft 
Pi 03 & 
X ch^ 
© 73 -ft 

72 ^ O 


7 © 
•P ^ 

co Z1 


P P 
•22 >> 55 

^•a 

© 

ft ft * •“* 

E_. * 

3®S 

O £ d 

ft D ft 

-28c 

2£8 


> 

o 

O 


73 

© 

So 

.p 

o 


o 

10 




P 

© 

2 

^© 

SJ 

SJ 

© 

& 

2 

w 


ft 

© 

p 

3 

d 

Pi 


44 

.© 

’ft 

"3 

© 

ft 

Pi 


c3 

© 

© 

a 

◄ 


CO 

© 

ft 

S3 

ft 

GO 

77 

© 

43 

•H 

P 

£ 


O 

Q> 


CO 

i 

o 


CO 

CO 


C3 

.8 

o ^ 
J s 

S3 

; 


ri£ 

<*> 

* <s> 

jS 

a> S 

c ?s 

b/j £3 

.ft « 

co^ 
























170 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


TP 

10 

0> 

SP 

e< 


o 

H-3 
• pH 

X 

•pH 

rC 

W 


55 

hH 

a 

o 

Dh 

c 

fa 

H 

a 

& 

o 

o 

OD 

w 

Eh 

GO 

Q 

fa 

Eh 

hH 

£ 

& 

w 

a 

Eh 

fa 

o 

fa 

◄ 

a 

CO 

a 

s 

w 

a 

Eh 

fa 

o 

fc 

a 

a 

H 

w 

fa 

o 

§ 

a 

o 

fa 


o 

>*H 

Ob 

>H 

HO 

co 

S3 

<o 

.c5 


s 

HO 

c? 

S 

c* 

<^> 

HO 

o 


•3 

•<^ 

3 

Co 


8 

S 

HO 

CO 


e 

I 

-« 

O 

<3 

C* 

8 

e 

■< 

GQ 

r% 

C$ 

•S 

!< 

o 

s- 

o 


s» 

i 

£ 

eo 

5 

<0 

*53 

■3 

*C^ 

t§ 


w 

M 

c8 

a 

© 

P5 


<1 

fc 

hH 

S 

HH 

a 

o 


CO 

o 

ft 

co 


1 Sal^ 

O £ u a •& 

d £ ce'd © 

S oaqg 


’Z OA-i ts 
O 03 


y s'®—"S 

o«2 £?§£ 
< ® 2 


d 

CO 

«*-« 

O 

© 

t-. 

3 

"S 

£ 


d 

c3 

T3 

d 

© 

© 

'd 


© 

a 

c3 

5? 


o3 

d . 

•Bs 

03 -£ 

e.S 

j2 

s ^ 

^•PM 

© o 

a 

c3 

fc 


hb 

o -a 

©■S'® 

4—> t_, © 

fi 2 
ft 


U . 
© © 
o co 

d 03 
d o 

3 «PH 


fcJO 

.s 

£ 

o 


(h 

<2 

'd 

© 

HH> 

d 

d 

o 

o 

© 

◄ 


© 

■M 

M 

§ 

d 

o< 


d 

© 

S 

© 

*3 

© 

fa 


w 


fa 

© 

c3 

*h 

fa 

'S 

bo 

d 

W 


g3 

© 

•^H 

© 

a 

<5 


CO 

© 

H-3 

c3 

CO 

'd 

© 

4H» 

•r-H 

d 

a 


00 


d 

£ 


CO 


8 
• <s> 

faO 

O 5^ 

GO S 
fa O 

fS° 

^ Co 

cu 

• HO 

.Co 
G ^3 

Cu 

HO 

!§ 
_ _ IPO 

T3 ^ 

<D 

fS ^ 
fcc>® 

m ^ 


N 






























I 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 171 


10 

10 

0) 

to 

c3 

ft 



< 

fc 

hH 

K 

o 

a 

O 

a 

H 

a 

O 

o 

QQ 

a 

H 

<1 

Eh 

00 

Q 

a 

Eh 

hh 

s? 

a 

W 

a 

Eh 

a 

O 

a 

a 

02 

a 

a 

a 

a 

E- 

o 

fc 

a 

a 

Eh 

W 

a 

a 

o 

a 

a 

o 

a 





• <s> 

s 


£ 

o 


a 
o 

20 

CO 

" = 
. HO 

<t-CO 
. ^3 

Q •■§ 
t§ 


Q 

CS' 

^ 

0) J3 

• rH 

CO . 













































































172 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


co 

o> 

&0 

o3 

CB 


O 

• rH 

rO 

•rH 

K 

w 


Z 

b 

Q 

B 

O 

Ph 

H 

B 

P 

O 

Cfl 

W 

H 

«! 

H 

GO 

Q 

W 

£ 

fc 

P 

W 

b 

Eh 

o 

«< 

w 

as 

B 

a 

w 

B 

Eh 

B 

O 

B 

P 

Eh 

W 

B 

B 

O 

a 

B 

O 


>H 

»< 

tO 

O 

fc 

fO 


>ki 

c^ 

^3 

£ 

S*. 


r< 

tO 

cc 

t*. 

3 

00 


£ 

3 

to 

<*> 

a$ 


e 

J 

s 

#S 

•<S> 

<3 

£ 

<3 

»< 

CO 


•<s> 

s 

St 

to 

St 

2 

<3 

CO 

■& 

53 

to 

05 

^5 

■s 

• o» 

t§ 


<3 

fc 

HH 

S 

HH 

Pt 

o 


CO 

M 

Vh 

C3 


m 

P3 


CO 

O 

ft 

CO 


Ss'Sg'S 
o a gj-fc 

jhs.318 

<! © 


fl8 



£ 

CO 

o 

O 

© 

u. 

£ 

£ 

£ 


£ 
ce 
'd 
£ 
© 
v-« 
© 
T3 


© 

a 

c3 

5? 


c3 

£ 

•Ba 

fl.S 

© o 

a 

03 

z 


bio 

0^5 

® s| 

c3 c£ ® 
0 8 
ft 


P • 
© 0} 
^ 52 

a § 
£*~ 
s? ° 


Q *+S 

cS frt 

«§ 
£ o 

° fl ® 

, © s 

*d « £ 

®ss 

>*sft 
fe ° £ 

CO 


© 

CO ^ 

cs la 
£ -g . 

8 © W 

p, a • 

^CW 

m 


> 

o 

O 


'd 

© 

b£ 

'- 

c3 

,£ 

o 


oo 

io 


© 

j- 

ft 

£ 

CO 

a 

PQ 

w 


o 

rH 

o 

T—I 

ocT 


bfi 

£ 


C: 

£ 

• <o 

•'pS 

St 

£ ^ 
rr to 

O St 
2 § 
■s° 

^ CO 

cu 

• to 
^ to 

.CQ 
P ^3 

to 

•<r^ 

t§ 


T5 J 
B ^ 

to c 

•rH 

CO ^ 






























CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H 


THAYER 


173 


io 

o 

to 

cS 

Ph 


o 

s-p 

• rH 

• rH 

M 

X 

H 


< 

£ 

►H 

w 

o 

« 

O 

Ph 

H 

Ph 

P 

o 

o 

CQ 

w 

H 

QQ 

P 

w 

H 

£ 

P 

w 

K 

H 

Ph 

O 

w 

GO 

tf 

<S 

a 

w 

w 

H 

Ph 

O 

& 

Ph 

P 

H 

W 

Ph 

Ph 

O 

a 

Ph 

o 

Ph 


Ob 

•> 

so 

Co 

rO 


U 


^5 

■s 

cs 

3 

Cjh 

r< 

SO 

s 

S 

so 


e 

S 

•<S> 

s 

#N 

•<s> 

C3 

e 

»< 

OQ 

•> 

c$ 

.§ 

S 

so 

s 

£ 

co 

<^> 

so 

C5 

H-w 

CQ 

■2* 

*<S> 

£ 


< 

£ 

hH 

S 

hH 

Ph 

O 


CO 

M 

c3 

a 

© 

Ph 


co 

O 

P 

•2 

Q 


Isis'S 

2 - ££•* 

□ *_ C3 73 © 

d 8 

-< « C3 2 


g.2 £f^.fc 

g<~ g c3 ® 
^ o g 


© 

s-< 

B 

4^> 

c3 

£ 


d 

c3 

d 

© 

«— 

© 

73 


© 

a 

o3 

£ 


cS 

d . 

•Be 

c8-g 

«.a 

© o 

a 

03 

fc 


Mi 

o -9 

sFS 

0 £ 
ft 


© © 

r> co 

as 

d 

£ ° 


> 

o 

O 


73 

© 

bC 

■- 

c3 

O 


o 

73 


O 

»o 


lO 

rH 

lO 


2 ^ 
a ^ 


bj0d4 

.a £ 

.a 

,Qp-P 


4-> 

c3 

rO 

73 

d 

o3 


8;B . 

O -5 


<3 

8 

•<s> 

• 58 
o^ 5 

m ^ 
P S 
► M o 

J 8 

<r so 
^ Q 
so 

ci ^ 

so 

•«s> 

^ e 
0) S 

to ^ 

•rH « 


d 


0 


so 

rd 

to 

CO 

a 

d 

a 

c3 

•rH 

53 

§ 

m 

CO 

© 

a 

r-H 

Pi 

03 

a 

rd 

O 


© 


to 

© 

■P 

c3 

-p> 

m 

*g 

© 

-p> 

•rH 

d 

P 


o 

73 


O 

rH 

G5 

rH 

oT 


o 

O 


o 

rH 

Oi 


CD 

(M 


O 

53 




10 











































174 


CHARGES AGAINST RUEUS H. THAYER. 


00 

0) 

SP 

Ph 


o 

-tJ 

• r-1 

• i—( 

rP 

X 

w 


*< 

►H 

w 

o 

Pi 

o 

Eh 

K 

o 

o 

00 

W 

Eh 

Eh 

CO 

fl 

« 

Eh 

M 

£ 

£> 

w 

w 

Eh 

O 

hJ 

◄ 

w 

oo 

tf 

a 

w 

w 

Eh 

O 

a 

tf 

Eh 

W 

P4 

fe 

O 

a 

« 

o 


Ob 

>H 


CO 

>H 


"^5 

HO 

C3 

s 

r< 

HO 

o 


co 

HO 

*<>> 

§ 

*0> 

£ 

4§ 


<3 

•§ 

s 

r\ 

•<s> 

Q 

r< 

e 

c 

CQ 

•N 

cs 

•S 

6 

HO 

S 

cS 

Co 

■•O 

S 

CQ 

'e 

■S 

(§ 


►P 

<5 

£ 


P5 

o 


CO 

M 

L* 

c3 


© 

P5 


r O 

<D 

> 

© 

CO 

c3 

PI . . 
goo 
p«ft 

rO 

p 

co 


CO 

O 

S 


> 

o 

O 


© 

be 

Vh 

c3 

,P 

Q 


fall’s 

g«~ 2^ s 

<1 o c3 P 


© O O lO 
05 05 05 co 


CM 


fil'd I 

“°-§ g 


© 

tH 

P 

"c8 

£ 


P 

c3 

'P 

P 

© 

T5 

«w 

O 

© 

£ 

c3 

£ 


c3 

P . 

■Ss 

cati 

p.a 

'p .23 
g P- 

^tN 

© o 

a 

c3 

£ 


O 

o 

© 

£ 

© 

P- 

P 

CO 


g 

£ 

© 

S3 

© 

rO 

a 

w 


T* 

O 

O 

£ 

.a 

© 

O 

© 

be 

o 

© 

O 


o o 




c8 

© 

© 

£ 

< 


CO 

© 

H-> 

c3 

HO 

02 

© 


ffi 


tub 

.£ 

2 ® 

*§ 

Ih 

Ph 


05 

t-H 

CO 


p 

£> 


05 05 


CM 


. O . . 

nU Jh (h 

© • P P 

£ 


>-< * 
© © 

-°S 

o 


£ 

d 

£ 


CO N X 05 
^ ^ ^ 


C5 

£ 

•<>> 

£0 
o ^ 
w o 

& u 

■ s> 
<,-0 

• s 

Q HO 

HO 

HO 

•<s> 

t§ 

|3 

p CO 

.SP§ 































CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


175 


O* 

10 

to 

c5 

Ph 


o 

& 

4-> 
• r-H 

•-H 

rP 

X 

W 


£ 

LH 

a 

o 

a 

o 

P*H 

Eh 

PS 

p 

o 

o 

CO 

W 

H 

◄ 

H 

co 

Q 

« 

H 

LH 

£ 

P 

W 

a 


a 

c 

p 

a 

CO 

a 

a 

a 

a 

Eh 

a 

c 

a 

a 

P 

W 

a 

a 

o 

a 

a 

o 

a 


>4 

>H 


■« 

HO 

c> 

8 

•? 

8 

■S 


42 

•<>> 

§ 

s 

3 

HO 


e 

8 

•<s> 

S 

rs 

•<s> 

Q 

r< 

8 

cs 

CQ 

es 

•S 

s 

HO 

§ 

CO 

s 

ZQ 

"G 

HO 

*C^ 

(S 


PI 

£ 

HH 

a 

hH 

a 


m 

d 

B 

© 

a 


in 

O 

P 

.2 

Q 


Ball's 

o£ gf^£ 

d v, c3 73 © 

JHsg 


T5 
© ^ 

* d 


d co 
n © 

d © 
o t- 


i=ri 


© 

d 

c3 

£ 


d 

<3 

73 

d 

•2 

© 

73 

H-i 

O 

© 

s 

03 

55 


03 

d . 
.Ste 

o-» 

c.B 

^_cs 
d CL 

© o 

s 

c3 

55 


U) 

o ..a 
©'K'g 

4^ L* ® 
L-t 

P< 


Li . 
© <0} 
P> 2 

sS 


c 

8 

•<S» 

Sh 

^ ?o 

55 ^ 

Or ho 

O 

2 1 

■S° 

^ CO 
• Ho 

<! 5* 

^ HO 

.GO 

Q ^ 

HO 

* <s> 

tS 


0)"§ 

a ^ 


• 

00 

0) 

GO 

c3 

O 

• 

O 

55 























176 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER, 


< 

£ 
i—i 

a 

o 

a 

c 

a 

a 

a 

o 

o 

CO 

w 

H 

H 

0} 

Q 

W 


W 

a 

H 

Eh 

O 

55 

a 

a 

h 

w 

a 

o 

£ 

a 

o 

Eh 


>"H 

Ob 


O 

fe 

rO 

£ 

*♦0 

GQ 

a 

Jo 

HO 

Jo 

C5 

s 

CO 


Jo 

O 


w 

CO 

H 

HH 

•<s> 


<D 

55 

Co 


l c 

a 

• 


w 

O 

»a 

#s 

a 

g 

i—_ 

rH 

H 

Jo 

z 

• 

o 


a 

S4> 

hH 

a 


O 


hH 

a 

•4^ 

P3 


o 

•pH 

rO 

• 

<J 

a 

1 

•<s> 



ro 


XI 

a 



& 

◄ 

O 



s 

*s 



•<<> 

«< 

g 

Q 

CQ 

#s 

I 

s 

-o 

S~. 

i 

£ 

CO 

•s 

•s 

i§ 


a 

S3 

a 

© 

a 


d 
© 

> 

M 
© 
co 

c3 

too 

O 

d 

CO 


o o 


co 

o 

f 

p 


> 

o 

O 


d 

l'C'O 


c3 

X3 

o 


Isis'S 

5 ^ bij C 

cSTJ <v 

Jjj°-s9 8 


o « £ 


88° 


•O 


o 

lO 


Is?^^ 

^ 3) k£d >• 
O <d H d-d 
d C3 h © 

!*■§ § 


2 

co 

s-« 

O 

© 

u 

•+-> 

o3 

53 


2 

c3 

d 

2 

© 

«*-. 

© 

d 

«*-. 

o 

© 

a 

c3 

£ 


o3 

2 . 

Bis 

c8 tj 

c.S 

'd 

2 Ph 

© o 


55 


© 

E 

© 

ft 

d 

CO 


>> • 
o © 

2 t- 

° p< 

a? 

to w 
d • 

•E <S g 
.S'" O O 

c3 kSTJ 
£ jo 5 
G 


o 

c 

H 

< 

CO 


a 

O 

co 

ft 

£ 

o 

x: 

H 


© 

tx 

n 

c 

© 

O 


CO 

© 

4 -> 

CCS 

4-3 

a> 

d 

© 


• © W 

W 


O 

d 


bX 

■o -s 

H* TO 


© co^ 

4^ U © 
c3 cd 

p 


© 

i- 

ft 


05 05 05 


1—H rH lO 

rHCOC^ 

£ »ti 

d £ © 


o> 


CO 

<M 

4-3 

ft 

© 


© © 
^ 53 
£ © 


Oh« 

»OiOiO 


co 


C3 

a 

Sh'O 
^ Jo 

O Jo 

a § 

^ Co 

• H-o 

<i d 

^ HO 

.GO 

so 

•c* 

t§ 


o> ^ 

a ^ 

•r~< S 

CO^ 










































CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


177 


CO 

<D 

ft 


o 


• »H 

• rH 


5 

l-s 

w 

Q 

PS 

o 

Ph 

Eh 

PS 

t> 

O 

O 

OQ 

w 

H 

Eh 

Q 

W 

H 

i-H 

£ 

w 

te 

Eh 

Ph 

o 

>-S 

w 

GO 

PS 

S 

w 

K 

Eh 

Ph 

O 

55 

PS 

£ 

Eh 

W 

PS 

Ph 

O 

a 

PS 

o 

Ph 


< 

u 



997—13-12 


C3 

•§ 

so 

o ^ 
m s 
A o 

^ CO 
• so 

<2 c 

^ so 

.<20 

Q 

Id 

£ 


.SPS 

CO ^ 











































178 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 62.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

No. 612. Shanghai, China, February 1, 1912. 

F. E. Hinckley, clerk of court , in account with the Treasurer of the United States, under 
consular court regulations of 1888; fees, sections 98 {court), 99, and 107 (clerk), and 
under orders of court. 

FRACTION QUARTER JULY 11 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1906. 

[Treasury rate for quarter, 522.] 

The United States Court for China was created by act of Congress of June 30, 1906 
(34 Statutes at Large, 814). The court held its first session on December 17, 1906. 
The undersigned was appointed clerk of court July 11, 1906. There were no fees, 
fines, or forfeitures earned or made payable or other collections in the fraction quarter 
July 11 to September 30, 1906. 

(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court 

(From July 11, 1906, to September 29, 1910). 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 63.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

No. 613. Shanghai, China, February 1, 1912. 

F. E. Hinckley, clerk of court, in account with the Treasurer of the United States under 
consular court regulations of 1899; fees, sections 98 (court), 99, and 107 (clerk), and 
under orders of court. 

QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1906. 

[Treasury rate for quarter, 526. Rates of docket items totaling items herein are rates of commencing 

actions, severally.] 



Gold. 

Mexican. 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Debtor: 

Fees earned from the United States— 

Criminal actions: Court, nil; clerk, $6.14. 

| $7.64 

| 13.81 

4.78 

$15.12 

26.31 

9.09 

. 


Fees earned from individuals and corporations— 

Civil actions: Court, nil; clerk, $5.65. 

Criminal actions: Court, nil; clerk, $2.16. 

Miscellaneous: Court, nil; clerk, $6.00. 

Unearned balance of deposit, civil No. 2, depositor dis¬ 
appeared. 

. 


Creditor: 

Fees earned from the United States. 

$7.64 

18.59 

$15.12 
35.40 

Due to the Treasurer. 






26.23 

50.52 

26.23 

50.52 


(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 

(From July 11, 1906, to September 29, 1910.) 
























CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


179 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 64.] 

UNITED STATES FOR CHINA. 

N°- 614. > Shanghai, China, February 1, 1912. 

F. E. Hinckley, clerk of court, in account with the Treasurer of the United States under 
consular court regulations of 1888; fees, sections 98 (court), 99 and 107 (clerk), and 
under orders of court. 

QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1907. 

(Treasury rate for quarter, 554. Rates of docket items totaling items herein are rates of commencing 

actions, severally.] 



Go'.d. 

Mexican. 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Debtor: 

Due to the Treasurer December 31, 1906. 

$18.59 
| 265.15 

j 476.59 
4,878.00 

$35.40 

490.73 

878.98 

8,805.00 



Fees earned from the United States— 

Civil: Court, nil; clerk, nil. 

Criminal: Court, $120.00; clerk, $118.05. 

T^S+.at.PQ* Pnnrt J11K HO* nlnrlr Af\ 



Miscellaneous: Court, nil; clerk, $11.70. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations— 

Civil: Court, $135.00; clerk, $83.90. 

Criminal: Court, $105.00; clerk, $72.49 . 



Miscellaneous: Court, nil; clerk, $16.05. 

Fines and forfeitures (criminal actions. Nos. 1, 7, 8, 9,10,11, 
13,14)... .. 



Creditor: 

Fees earned from the United States. 

$265.15 
4,878.00 
495.18 

$490.73 
8,805.00 
914.38 

Paid to the Treasurer 1 . 



Due to the Treasurer. 






5,638.33 

10,210.11 

5,638.33 

10,210.11 


1 Paid to credit of the Treasurer in the International Bank, Shanghai, as reported in dispatches Nos. 
235 to 250, March 18, 1907. 

F. E. Hinckley, 

(From July 11, 1906 to September 29, 1910). 





























180 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 65.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

No. 615. Shanghai, China, February 1 , 1912. 

F. E. Hinckley , clerk of court , in account with the Treasurer of the United States under 
consular court regulations of 1888; fees , sections 98 (court ), 99 and 107 (clerk), and 
under orders of court. 

QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 1907. 

[Treasury rate for quarter, 543. Rates of docket items totalling items herein are rates of commencing 

actions, severally.] 


Gold. 

Mexican. 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Debtor: 

Due to the Treasurer March 31,1907. 

$495.18 
| 27.55 

| 346.78 
23.64 

$914.38 

51.07 

638.18 

43.53 



Fees earned from the United States— 

Civil: Court, nil; clerk, nil. 

Criminal: Court, $15,00; clerk, $4.35. 



Miscellaneous - Clerk, $8.20. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations— 

Civil: Court, $90.00; clerk, $99.02. 

Criminal: Court, nil; clerk, $28.95. 



Miscellaneous: Clerk, $19.16. 

Interest on bank deposit 1 . 



Creditor: 

Fees earned from the United States. 

$27.55 
865.60 

.$51.07 
1,596.09 

Due to the Treasurer. 






893.15 

1, 647.16 

893.15 

1,647.16 


1 Official account, clerk of court. 

(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 

(From July 11, 1906, to September 29, 1910.) 



































CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


181 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 66.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

No. 616. Shanghai, China, February 1, 1912. 

F. E. Hinckley, clerk of court, in account with the Treasurer of the United States under 
consular court regulations of 1888; fees, sections 98 (court), 99 and 107 (clerk), and 
under orders of court. 


QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1907. 

[Treasury rate for quarter, 526. Rates of docket items totaling items herein are rates of commencing actions, 

severally.] 



Gold. 

Mexican. 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Debtor: 

Due to the Treasurer June 30, 1907 . 

$865.60 
| 42.75 

J 465.20 
60.00 

$1,596.09 

80.94 

870.51 

114.07 



Fees earned from the United States— 

Civil: Court, $15.00; clerk, $6.65. 

Criminal: Court, nil; clerk, $16.90. 



Eotaluo. vUUI 1, I11L, bltl h., UL11........................... 

Miscellaneous: Clerk, $4.20. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations— 

Civil: Court, $90.00; clerk, $95.45. 

Criminal: Court, $15.00; clerk, nil. 



Miscellaneous: Clerk, $17.35. 

Fines fen'minal antion Nn. 21). .. 



Creditor: 

Fees earned from the United States . 

$42. 75 
750.00 
640. 80 

$80.94 
1,426.98 
1,153.69 

Salary of clerk of court, instructions of auditor, June 4,1907. 
Due to t.ho Treasurer. . 






1,433.55 

2,661.61 

1,433.55 

2,661.61 


(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

r'lprlr nf 

(From July 11, 1906, to September 29, 1910.) 



























182 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 67.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

No. 617. Shanghai, China, February 1 , 1912. 

F. E. Hinckley, clerk of court, in account with the Treasurer of the United States under 
consular court regulations of 1888; fees, sections 98 {court), 99 and 107 {clerk), and 
under orders of court. 

QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1907. 

[Treasury rate for quarter, 542. Rates of docket items totaling items herein are rates of commencing 

actions, severally.] 



Gold. 

Mexican. 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Debtor: 

Due to the Treasurer September 30,1907. 

$640.80 

• 141.70 

J 282.10 

17.41 

$1,153.69 

262.16 

527.78 

32.13 



Fees earned from the United States— 

Civil: Court, nil; clerk, $0.15. 

Criminal: Court, $30.00; clerk, $49.05. 



Miscellaneous: Clerk, $62.50. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations— 

Civil: Court, $45.00; clerk, $65.75. 

Criminal: Court, nil; clerk, $1.00. 



Miscellaneous: Clerk, $13.90. 

Interest on bank deposit 1 . 



Creditor: 

Fees earned from the United States. 

$141.70 
250.00 
690.31 

$262.16 
451.25 
1,262.34 

Salary of clerk of court, instructions of auditor, June 4, 1907. 
Due to the Treasurer. 

.. . 





1,082.01 

1,975. 75 

1,082.01 

1,975.75 


i Official account, clerk of court. 

(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Plprlf nf 

(From July 11, 1906, to September 29, 1*910.) 





























CHARGES AGAINST EUEUS H. THAYEE. 


183 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 68.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

No. 618. Shanghai, China, February 1 , 1912. 

F. E. Hinckley , clerk of court , in account with the Treasurer of the United States under 
consular court regulations of 1888; fees , sections 98 ( court ), 99 and 107 ( clerk ), and 
under orders of court. 

QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1908. 

[Treasury rate for quarter, 466. Rate of docket items totaling items herein are rates of commencing 

actions, severally.] 



Gold. 

Mexican. 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Debtor: 

Due to the Treasurer December 31, 1907. 

$690.31 

J 28.05 

j 39.64 

$1,262.34 

53.53 

78.01 



Fees earned from the United States— 

Civil: Court, nil; clerk, $0.20. 

Criminal: Court, nil; clerk, $24.20. 



Estates: Court, nil; clerk, nil. 

Miscellaneous: Clerk, $3.65. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations— 

Civil: Court, nil; clerk. $11.70. 

Criminal: Court, nil; clerk, $0.50. 



Miscellaneous: Clerk, $13.69. 

Creditor: 

Fees earned from th a United States 

$28.05 

512.97 

216.98 

$53.53 
1,100.79 
239.56 

Salary of clerk of court, instructions of auditor, June 4,1907.. 
Due to the Treasurer . 

0) 





758.00 

1,393.88 

758.00 

1,393.88 


1 Overpaid in computation of exchange; explained in dispatch No. 629, February 1, 1912. 

(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 

(From July 11, 1906, to September 29, 1910.) 




























184 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER, 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 69.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

No. 619. Shanghai, China, February 1, 1912. 

F. E. Hinckley , clerk of court , in account with the Treasurer of the United States under 
consular court regulations of 1888; fees, sections 98 {court), 99 and 107 {clerk), and 
under orders of court. 

QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 1908. 

[Treasury rate for quarter, 443. Rates of docket items totaling items herein are rates of commencing 

actions severally.] 


— 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Debtor: 

Due to the Treasurer March 31, 1908. 

$216.98 

| 17.00 

) 

J 62.60 

13.70 
31.19 

$239.56 

38.36 

134.30 

30.93 

57.42 



Fees earned from the United States— 

Civil: Court, nil; clerk, nil. 

Criminal: Court, nil; clerk, $0.90. 



Miscellaneous, clerk, $15.60. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations— 

Civil: Court, nil; clerk, $7.75. 

Criminal: Court, nil; clerk, $10.30:. 



Miscellaneous, clerk, $25.00. 

Interest on bank deposit. 



Interest on special bank deposit 1 . 



Creditor: 

Fees earned from the United States. 

$17.00 
50.00 
274. 47 

$38.36 

112.84 

349.37 

Salary of clerk of court, instructions of auditor, June 4,1907. 
Due to the Treasurer. 






341.47 

500.57 

341.47 

500.57 


1 Instructions of the auditor, March 4, 1908, rate 543, June quarter, 1907. 


(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 

(From July 11, 1906, to September 29, 1910.) 





























CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


185 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 70.] 

United States Court for China. 

No. 620. Shanghai, China, February 1, 1912. 

F . E. Hinckley, clerk of court , in account with the Treasurer of the United States under 
consular court regulations of 1888; fees , sections 98 (court), 99 and 107 (clerk), and 
under orders of court. 


QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1908. 

[Treasury rate for quarter, 427. Rates of docket items totaling items herein are rates of commencing 

actions, severally ] 



Gold. 

Mexican. 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Debtor: 

Due to the Treasurer June 30, 1908. 

$274.47 
| 118.20 

J 601.29 
676.36 

$349.37 

268.32 

1,338.89 

1,584.00 



Fees earned from the United States— 

Civil: Court, nil; clerk, $0.45. 

Criminal: Court, $45.00; clerk, $16.80. 



Miscellaneous: Clerk, $31.85. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations— 

Civil: Court, $90.00; clerk, $53.85. 

Criminal: Court, $15.00; clerk, $133.39. 

Estates: Court, $135.00; clerk, $71.55. 

Miscellaneous: Clerk, $102.50. 

Forfeiture, criminal action No. 27 1 . 



Creditor: 

Fees earned from the United States. 

$118.20 
676.36 
875.76 

$286.32 

1,584.00 

1,688.26 

Paid court disbursing officer, forfeiture, criminal No. 27_ 

Due to the Treasurer..... 






1,670.32 

3,540.58 

1,670.32 

3,540.58 


1 Net after 1 per cent fee debited as earned from individuals and corporations. 

(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 

(From July 11, 1906, to September 29, 1910.) 
































186 


CHARGES AGAINST RUEUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 71.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

No. 621. Shanghai, China, February 1 , 1912. 

F. E. Hinckley, clerk of court, in account with the Treasurer of the United States under 
consular court regulations of 1888; fees, sections 98 {court), 99 and 107 {clerk), and 
under orders of court. 


QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1908. 

[Treasury rate for quarter, 415. Rates of docket items totaling items herein are rates of commencing 

actions, severally.] 



Gold. 

Mexican. 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Debtor: 

Due to the Treasurer September 30, 1908. 

$875.76 
| 37.70 

J 331.54 

6.10 

1,245.35 

$1,688.26 

91.37 

741.01 

24.35 

3,054.68 



Fees earned from the United States— 

Civil: Court, nil; clerk, nil. 



Criminal: Court, $15.00; clerk, $4.30. 


Miscellaneous: Clerk, $16.60. 



Fees earned from individuals and corporations— 

Civil: Court, $90.00; clerk, $68.65. 

Criminal: Court, nil; clerk, $0.35. 


Miscellaneous: Clerk, $10.30. 



Interest on bank deposits 1 . 

Estates payable to "the Treasurer, under order of court: 
Estate No. 2 and estate of Wong Tien. 



Creditor: 

Fees earned from the United States. 

$37.30 

1,245.35 
1,213.40 

$91.37 

3,054.68 

2,453.62 

Paid to the Treasurer, instructions from the auditor Octo¬ 
ber 23,1908, and January 15, 1909. 



Due to the Treasurer... 






2,496.05 

5,599.67 

2,496.05 

5,599.67 


1 After deducting interest return to depositors in appeal of criminal action No. 3, Mexican $28.82. 


(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 

(From July 11, 1906, to September 29, 1910.) 






























CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


187 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 72.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

No. 622. Shanghai, China, February 1, 1912. 

F. E. Hinckley, clerk of court, in account with the Treasurer of the United States under 
consular court regulations of 1888; fees, sections 98 {court), 99 and 107 {clerk), and 
under orders of court. 

QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1909. 

[Treasury rate for quarter, 396. Rates of docket items totaling items herein are rates of commencing 

actions, severally.] 



Gold. 

Mexican. 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Debtor: 

Due to the Treasurer December 31,1908. 

$1,213.40 

• 24.80 

J 158.06 

$2,453.62 

61.57 

375.37 



Fees earned from the United States— 

Civil: Court, nil; clerk, nil. 

Criminal: Court, nil; clerk, nil. 



Miscellaneous: Clerk, 84.15. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations— 

Civil: Court, nil; clerk, $38.34. 

Criminal: Court, nil; clerk, $0.10. 



Miscellaneous: Clerk, $12.72. 

Creditor: 

AerTiAd from f.hA TTnitfid Stat.AS . 

$24.80 
1,371.46 

$61.57 

2,828.99 

Du a to f.TiA TrAfl.surpr. 






1,396.26 

2,890.56 

1,396.26 

2,890.56 


(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 

(From July 11, 1906, to September 29, 1910.) 



























188 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 73.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

No. 623. Shanghai, China, February 1, 1912. 

F. E. Hinckley, clerk of court, in account with the Treasurer of the United States under 
consular court regulations of 1888; fees, sections 98 {court), 99, and 107 (clerk), and 
under orders of court! 

QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 1909. 

[Treasury rate for quarter, 407. Rates of docket items totaling items herein are rates of commencing 

actions, severally.] 



Gold. 

Mexican. 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Debtor: 

Dim to tli p. Trpflsnrfir Maroh 31, 19f)9. 

$1,371.46 
| 140.80 

J 162.09 

24.71 

$2,828.99 

345.22 

378.16 

60.72 



Fees earned from the United States— 

Civil: Court, nil; clerk, nil. 

Criminal: Court, $15.00; clerk, $45.30. 



instates, violin,, jfrio.uu, cierK, $u.4o. 

Miscellaneous: Clerk, $05.05. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations— 

Civil: Court, $45.00; clerk, $43.65. 

Criminal: Court, nil; clerk, nil. 



-tbsiait3b. vvourij $ou.uu, cierK., <poz.uo... 

Miscellaneous: Clerk, $11.39. 

Interest on bank deposit. 



Creditor: 

Fees earned from the United States. 

$140.80 
1,558.26 

$345.22 
3,267.87 

Due to the Treasurer. 






1,699.06 

3,613.09 

1,699.06 

3,613.09 


(Signed) 
(From July 11, 


F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 

1906. to September 29, 1910.) 



























CHARGES AGAINST RUEUS H. THAYER. 


189 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 74.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

No. 624. Shanghai, China, February 1 , 1912. 

F. E. Hinckley , clerk of court, in account with the Treasurer of the United States under 
consular court regulations of 1888; fees , sections 98 (court), 99, and 107 (clerk), and 
under orders of court. 


QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1909. 

[Treasury rate for quarter, 416. Rates of docket items totaling items herein are rates of commencing 

actions, severally.] 



Gold. 

Mexican. 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Debtor: 

Due to the Treasurer June 30,1909. 

$1,558.26 

• 67.29 

• 398.46 

$3,267.87 

163.98 

914.70 



Fees earned from the United States— 

Civil: Court, nil; clerk, nil. 

Criminal: Court, $15.00; clerk, $4.64. 



Miscellaneous: Clerk, $2.25. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations— 

Civil: Court, nil; clerk, $335.34. 

Criminal: Court, nil; clerk, $2.40. 



xb states. v^ouxt, tftou.uu, cierk, $zi.oo... • • • 

Miscellaneous: Clerk, $8.87. 

Creditor: 

Fees earned frnm the United States.. 

$67.29 

1,956.72 

$163.98 
4,182.57 

D^e tn the Treasurer . 






2,024.01 

4,346.55 

2,024.01 

4,346.55 


(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 

(From July 11, 1906, to September 29, 1910.) 



























190 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. T'BAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 75.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

No. 625. Shanghai, China, February 1, 1912. 

F. E. Hinckley Jclerk of court, in account with the Treasurer of the United States under 
consular court regulations of 1888, fees, sections 98 (court), 99 and 107 (clerk), and 
under orders of court. 

QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1909. 

{Treasury rate for quarter, 407. Rates of docket items totaling items herein are rates of commencing 

actions, severally.] 



Gold. 

Mexican. 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Debtor: 

Due to the Treasurer September 30, 1909. 

$1,956.72 
| 84.34 

J 446.25 
33.91 

$4,182.57 

204.68 

1,047.59 

83.31 



Eees earned from the United States— 

Civil: Court, nil; clerk, nil. 

Criminal: Court. $45.00; clerk, $32.19. 



Miscellaneous: Clerk, $6.75. 

Eees earned from individuals and corporations— 

Civil: Court, $15.00; clerk, $163.64. 

Criminal: Court, nil; clerk, $15.69. 



Miscellaneous court; clerk, $0.95. 

Interest on bank deposits. 



Creditor: 

Fees earned from the United States. 

$84.34 
2,436.88 

$204.68 
5,313.47 

Due to the Treasurer. 






2,521.22 

5,518.15 

2,521.22 

5,518.15 


(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 

(From July 11, 1906, to September 29, 1910.) 
































CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


191 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 76.] 

United States Court for China, 

No. 626. Shanghai, China, Februanj 1, 1912. 

F. E. Hinckley , clerk of court, in account with the Treasurer of the United States under 
consular court regulations of 1888; fees, sections 98 (court )‘ 99 and 107 (clerk), and 
under orders of court. 


QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1910. 

[Treasury rate for quarter, 407. Rates of docket items totaling items herein are rates of commencing 

, action^, severally.] 



Gold. 

Mexican. 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Debtor: 

Due to the Treasurer December 31,1909. 

$2,436.88 

24.40 

202. 26 

$5,313.47 

60.17 

464.38 



Fees earned from the United States— 

Civil: Court, nil; clerk, nil. 

Criminal: Court, nil; clerk, nil. 

Estates: Court, $15.00; clerk, $2.65. 

Miscellaneous court, clerk, $6.75. 



Fees earned from individuals and corporations— 

Civil: Court, $15.00; clerk, $7.20. 

Criminal: Court, nil; clerk, nil. 

Estates: Court, $60.00; clerk, $76.85. 

Miscellaneous, $43.21. 



Creditor: 

Fees earned from the United States. 

$24.40 

59.40 

2,579.74 

$60.17 

112.93 

5,664.92 

Paid to the court disbursing officer, fine criminal action No. 
21 (net) 1 . 



Due to the Treasurer. 



✓ 



2,663.54 

5,838.02 

2,663.54 

5,838.02 


1 After deducting 1 per cent included under fees from individuals and corporations. 

(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 

(From July 11, 1906, to September 29, 1910.) 





















192 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[ Exhibit No. 1, page 77.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

No. 627. Shanghai, China, February 1, 1912. 

F. E. Hinckley, clerk of court, in account with the Treasurer of the United States under 
consular court regulations of 1888; fees, sections 98 {court), 99, and 107 {clerk), and 
under orders of court. 

QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 1910. 

[Treasury rate for quarter, 411. Rates of docket items totaling items herein are rates of commencing 

actions, severally.] 



Gold. 

Mexican. 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Debtor: 

Due to the Treasurer March 31,1910. 

$2,579.74 

J 272.16 

J 192.67 

26.48 

247.50 

$5,664.92 

692.14 

520. 62 

64.43 

602.18 

- 


Fees earned from the United States— 

Civil Court, nil; clerk, nil. 



Criminal Court, $120.00; clerk, $126.66. 


Miscellaneous, clerk, $9.50. 

• 


Fees earned from individuals and corporations— 

Civil Court, $30.00; clerk, $23.05. 

Criminal Court, nil; clerk, $2.50. 


Miscellaneous, clerk, $6.45. 



Interest on bank deposits. 

Fines: criminal actions 40, 42 (net, after deducting the 
one per cent fee debited under fees earned from indi¬ 
viduals and corporations, criminal actions, June quar¬ 
ter, 1910) . 



Creditor: 

Fees earned from the United States. 

$272.16 

99.00 

2,947.39 

$692.14 

240.87 
6,611.28 

Paid to the court disbursing officer, fine, criminalactionNo. 
42. 



Due to the Treasurer. 






3,318.55 

7,544.29 

3,318.55 

7,544.29 


(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 

(From July 11, 1906, to September 29, 1910.) 







































CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


193 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 78.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

No. 628. Shanghai, China, February 3, 1912. 

F. E. Hinckley, clerk of court, in account with the Treasurer of the United States under 
consular court regulations of 1888: fees, sections 98 (court), 99 and 107 (clerk), and 
under orders of court. 

FRACTION QUARTER JULY 1 TO SEPTEMBER 29, 1910. 

[Treasury rate for quarter, 425. Rates of docket items totaling items herein are rates of commencing 

actions severally.] 



Gold. 

Mexican. 

Gold. 

Mexican. 

Debtor: 

Due to the Treasurer June 30, 1910 . 

$2,947.39 

] 

$6,611.28 



Fees earned from the United States— 

Criminal: Court, nil; clerk. 86.40 . 



Estates: Court, nil: clerk, $5.00 .. 

[ 81.17 

188. 45 



Miscellaneous, clerk, S69.97. 



Fees earned from individuals and corporations— 

Civil* Court, nil: clerk £2°.75_ _ 

1 




Estates: Court, $45.00:"clerk, $39/ 
Yficr-pllflnp.mis plftrlr. SO.KO _ 

.48. 

V 4GG.03 

1,073.46 





Interest on bank deposits, December, 1910, quarter rate 421. 
Estate of W. Blanchard, payable to the Treasurer, order of 
court . .. 

30.15 

71.12 



29,125.43 

66,423. 09 

5.13 



Salary overpaid, March quarter, 1908, computation of ex¬ 
change l ... 

2.39 



Estate 13: D. Conklin, balance of deposit, depositor disap- 
peered - .. 

10.30 

24.35 



Creditor: 

Pepc earned from the United States . 


$81.17 

$188.45 

Paid to the Treasurer, ersate of W. Blanchard, instructions 



29,425.43 

148.50 

66.423.09 

Paid court disbursing officer 1 

Fine criminal action No. 40, June quarter, 1910, Mex. 

1 n _ _ 



361.30 

Total balance on closing account 
December 10, 1910, Mexican 
$7 177.08 . 

svith the Treasurer— 





December 29, 1910, Mexican 
$150.43 . . 






October 11, 1911, Mexican 

Mex. $7,424 . 04@445549 



3,307.76 

7,424. 04 

$24 57 . 



February 2, 1912, Mexican 
$3.16 .. 






February 3, 1912, Mexican 
$68.80 .. 








32,902.86 

74,396. S8 

32,962.86 

74,396.88 


' Despatch No'. 529, February 3, 1912. 


(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 

(From July 11, 1906, to September 29, 1910.) 


9997-13-—13 






































CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER, 


194 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 79.] 

United States Court for China. 


Statement of fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States , 

by clerk of court. 


[October 1,1910, to June 30,1911.] 


Dr. 

Mexican. 


To fees earned: 

Civil actions. $553.90 

Estate actions. 776.68 

Miscellaneous earnings from indi¬ 
viduals. 68.38 

Interests on deposits in bank. 46.69 

Criminal (charged to Government)... 95.63 

Miscellaneous (charged to Govern¬ 
ment) . 61.47 


Accounted by— 


1,602.75 


Shanghai, China, October 12, 1911. 


Cr. 

Mexican. 


By fees uncollected: 

Estate actions. $100.14 

Miscellaneous earnings. .24 

Government (criminal). 95.63 

Government (miscellaneous). 61.47 

By International Bank check No. 71826 to 
D. A. Wilson, junior, disbursing officer 
of the United States Court for China... 1,345.27 


1,602.75 


(Signed.) James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 80.] 

United States Court for China. 


Fees earned from individuals and corporations from the United States by clerk of court in 
civil, criminal, estate, and miscellaneous earnings. 

[July 1 to September 30,1911.] 


Estate actions. 

Civil actions. 

Criminal actions. 

Miscellaneous earnings. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

5. 

117 . 

118 . 

Total.... 

$0.25 
5.70 
.75 

554 

423 

423 

$0.45 
13.47 
1.77 

97 

$0.10 

423 

$0.23 

48 

49 

50 
52 

$2.00 

2.00 

.10 

.10 

423 

423 

423, 

423 

$4.73 

4.73 

.23 

.23 

324 

325 

326 

327 

$1.55 

1.55 

1.55 

.20 

423 

423 

423 

423 

$3.66 

3.66 

3.66 

.47 

6.70 

. 

15.69 

.... 

.10 

. 

.23 

.... 

4.20 

. 

9.92 

. 

4.85 

. 

11.45 


Accounted by— 

Shanghai, China, January 25, 1912. 


(Signed) 


James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 81.] 

United States Court for China. 


Summary of fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States , 

by clerk of court. 

[July 1 to September 30,1911.] 


To fees earned: Dr. Mexican. 


Civil actions.$0.23 

Estate actions.• 15.69 

Miscellaneous earnings from individuals. 

Criminal (charged to Government). 9.92 

Miscellaneous (charged to Government). 11.45 


37.29 

Accounted by— 

(Signed) 

Shanghai, China, January 25, 1912. 


By fees uncollected: Cr. Mexican. 

Government (criminal).$9.92 

Government (miscellaneous).11.45 

By International Bank check No. 71848 to 
D. A. Wilson, junior, disbursing officer of 
the United States Court for China. 15.92 


37.29 

James B. Davies, Clerk of Court. 

















































CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


195 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 82.] 

United States Court for China. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States, by clerk of 
court in civil, criminal , and estate actions. 


[October 1 to December 31,1911.] 


Estate actions. 

Civil actions. 

Criminal actions. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

16. 

$0.55 

.85 

.55 

.25 

1.55 

17.95 

.70 

.85 

.25 

1.75 

3.80 

1.90 

554 

407 

407 

406 

411 

425 

424 

424 

438 

438 

438 

438 

$0.99 

2.08 

1.35 

.61 

3.77 

42.23 

1.65 

2.00 

.57 

3.99 

8.67 

4.34 

92 

96 

97 

98 

99 
100 

$3.00 
1.60 
18.85 
21.70 
19.15 
25.60 

424 

438 

423 

416 

416 

416 

$7.07 
3.65 
44.56 
52.16 
46.03 
61.53 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

$0.40 

.25 

4.05 

11.25 

2.50 

2.60 

423 

416 

423 

416 

416 

416 

$0.94 

.60 

9.57 

27.04 

6.00 

6.25 

88 . 

89. 

94. 

100 . 

105. 

107. 

108. 









Ill. 









112 . 









113. 









115. 


















30.95 


72.25 

89.90 


215.00 

21.05 


50.40 







Forward 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 83.] 

United States Court for China. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States, by clerk of 
court in civil, criminal, and estate actions— Continued. 


[October 1 to December 31,1911.] 


Estate actions. 

Civil actions. 

Criminal actions. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

Brought for¬ 
ward 

$30.95 
.50 
25.75 
21.30 
20.90 
21.20 


$72.25 
1.18 
60.87 
51.20 
50.36 
50.96 

. 

$89.90 

. 

$215.00 


$21.05 


$50. 40 

117 

423 

423 

416 

416 

416 



ns 









i?n 









121 









1?? 









Total. 









120.60 


286.82 

89.90 

215.00 

21.05 

50. 40 


Accounted by: 

Shanghai, China, January 25, 1912. 


(Signed) James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court . 

















































































196 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 84.] 

United States Court for China. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States, by clerk of 
court in miscellaneous earnings and fines collected. 

[October 1 to December 31,1911.] 


Miscellaneous earnings from 
individuals. 

Miscellaneous earn¬ 
ings from the United 
States. 

Fees collected, earned, 
in previous quarters 
in miscellaneous 
earnings. 

Fines collected. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex¬ 

ican. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex¬ 

ican. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex¬ 

ican. 

No. 

Gold, 

Rate. 

Mex¬ 

ican. 

328. 

$0. 45 
4. 85 

416 

$1.08 

11.66 

332 

$0. 65 
1.55 

416 

$1.56 

317 

$0.10 

423 

$0.24 

52 

$25.00 

423 

$59.10 

329. 

416 

333 

416 

3. 73 

330. 

. 55 

416 

1. 32 

335 

1.05 

416 

2.52 









331. 

1.25 

416 

3. 00 









334. 

.10 

416 

.24 













336. 

1.55 

416 

3.73 



























8.75 

. 

21.03 

. 

3.25 

. 

7.81 

. 

.10 

. 

.24 

.... 

25.00 

. 

59.10 


Accounted by 


Shanghai, China, January 25, 1912. 


(Signed) James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 85.] 

United States Court for China. 


Summary offees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States, by 

clerk of court. 

[October 1 to December 31, 1911.1 


To fees earned: Dr. Mexican. 


Civil actions.$215.00 

Estate actions.,. 286.82 

Miscellaneous earnings from individuals 21.03 

Interest on deposits in bank. 55.50 

Criminal (charged to Government)_ 50.40 

Miscellaneous (charged to Government) 7.81 

Fees collected, earned in previous 

quarters.24 

Fines collected. 59.10 


695.90 

Accounted by 


By fees uncollected: Cr. Mexican 

Estate actions. $4.84 

Miscellaneous earnings. 15.98 

Government (criminal). 50.40 

Government (miscellaneous). 7.81 

By International Bank check No. 71848 to 
D. A. Wilson, junior, disbursing officer of 
the United States Court for China.616.87 


695.90 


Shanghai, China, January 25, 1912. 


(Signed) 


James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 



















































CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 197 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 86.] 

United States Court for China. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States, by clerk of 
court in miscellaneous earnings and bail forfeited. 

[January 1 to March 31,1912.] 


Miscellaneous earnings from 
individuals. 

Miscellaneous earnings charged 
against individuals Decem¬ 
ber quarter, 1911, now charged 
to the United States. 

Bail forfeited in criminal actions. 

No. 

Gold. 

Bate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

337 

338 

339 

$1.30 

1.35 

1.35 

434 

434 

434 

$2.99 

3.11 

3.11 

329 

331 

$4.85 

1.25 

416 

416 

$11.66 

3.00 

57 

$800.00 

205/15 

i $1,641.20 













4.00 

9.21 

6.10 

14.66 

800.00 

1,641.20 


i This bail was paid in gold and converted at the bank rate of 205/15 equals Mexican $1,641.20. 


Accounted by— 


Shanghai, China, April 6, 1912. 


(Signed) James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 


[Exhibit No 1, page 87.] 

United States Court for China. 


Summary of fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States, 

by clerk of court. 


[January 1 to March 31,1912.] 


Dr. Mexican. 


To fees earned: 

Civil actions. $104.13 

Estate actions. 226.06 

Miscellaneous earnings from individ¬ 
uals. 9.21 

Criminal (charged to Government)... 335.11 

Bail forfeited, gold $800.00 at bank rate 
205/15 equivalent to. 1,641.20 


2,315.71 


Accounted by: 


Cr. Mexican. 


By fees uncollected: 

Estate actions. $46.93 

Miscellaneous earnings. 6.22 

Government (criminal). 335. 11 

Government (miscellaneous) charged 
against individuals, December quar¬ 
ter, 1911, now charged to Govern¬ 
ment. 14.66 

By International Bank check No. 71860 to 


D. A. Wilson, junior, disbursing officer 
of the United States Court for China for 
Mexican, $271.59, and cash, Mexican 
$1,641.20. 1,912.79 


2,315. 71 


(Signed) 


Shanghai, China, April 6, 1912. 


James B Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 












































198 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 88.] 

United States Court for China. 


Fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States by clerk of 
court in civil, criminal, and estate actions. 


[January 1 to March 31,1912.] 


Estate actions. 

Civil actions. 

Criminal actions. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

* Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

5. 

$0.25 

554 

$0. 45 

77 

$1.05 

427 

$2. 45 

52 

$18.00 

423 

$42.55 

62. 

8.92 

443 

20.14 

98 

3.00 

416 

7.21 

53 

18.00 

416 

43.26 

93. 

.35 

407 

.86 

101 

19.95 

434 

45.97 

54 

1.50 

416 

3.60 

97. 

1.90 

407 

4.67 

102 

19.55 

434 

45.05 

55 

19.70 

416 

47.35 

102 . 

1.40 

411 

3.40 

103 

.80 

434 

1.84 

56 

27.30 

434 

62.90 

103. 

.85 

425 

2.00 

104 

.70 

434 

1.61 

57 

4.00 

434 

9. 21 

110 

2.60 

424 

6.13 





58 

24.35 

434 

56.10 

111 

1.15 

438 

2.63 





59 

4.10 

434 

9.44 

117 

16.40 

423 

38.77 





60 

3.40 

434 

7.83 














33.82 


79.05 


45.05 


104.13 


120.35 


282.24 


Carry forward 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 89.] 

United States Court for China. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States, by clerk of 
court in civil, criminal, and estate actions —Continued. 

[JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31,1912.] 


Estate actions. 

Civil actions. 

Criminal actions. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

Brot. forward... 
119. 

$33.82 

20.35 

1.85 

21.15 

19.50 

416* 

416 

434 

434 

$79.05 

48.91 

4.44 

48.73 

44.93 

. 

$45.05 


$104.13 

61 

62 

$120.35 

.70 

22.25 

434 

434 

$282.24 

1.61 

51.26 

121 . 





123. 





124. 









Total. 









96.67 

226.06 

45.05 

104.13 

143.30 

335.11 








Accounted by— 


Shanghai, China, April 6, 1912. 


(Signed) 


James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court, 













































































CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


199 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 90.] 


UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States, by clerk of 

court in civil, criminal, and estate actions. 

APRIL 1 TO JUNE 30, 1912. 


Estate actions. 

Civil actions. 

Criminal actions. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

16. 

$1.00 

1.00 

2.75 
16.00 
16.90 

1.25 

1.00 

5.35 

1.75 
1.15 

.55 

$0.554 
.407 
.425 
.424 
.424 
.438 
.438 
.416 
.416 
.416 
.416 

$1.81 

2.46 

6.47 
37.74 

39.85 
2.85 
2.28 

12.86 
4.21 
2.76 
1.32 

97 

99 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

$1.55 
3.00 
1.55 
31.35 
28.15 
19.90 
1.00 
5.30 
.70 

$0.423 
.416 
.434 
.434 
.434 
.459 
.459 
.459 
.459 

$3.66 
7.21 
3.57 
72.24 
64.86 
43.36 
2.18 
11.54 
1.52 

51 

61 

63 

64 

65 

$19.35 

20.35 

27.95 

18.50 

2.00 

$0.416 
.434 
.459 
.459 
.459 

$46.52 

46.89 

60.89 
40.30 

4.36 

89. 

103. 

107. 

108. 

Ill. 

112. 





119. 





120. 





121. 





122. 









• 









48.70 


114.61 


92.50 


210.14 


88.15 


198.96 







Carry forward. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 91.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States by clerk of court 
in civil, criminal, and estate actions —Continued. 

[April 1 to June 30, 1912.] 


Estate actions. 

Civil actions. 

Criminal actions. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

Brot. forward... 
123 

$48.70 
.25 
5.20 
3.65 
5.00 


$114.61 

.60 

11.33 

7.95 

10.90 






$88.15 


$198.96 

$0. 416 
.459 
.459 
.459 


$92.50 


$210.14 



125 







126 









127 









Totals.... 









62.80 


145.39 


92. 50 


210.14 


88.15 


198.96 







Accounted by— 


(Signed) James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court . 


Shanghai, China, July 1, 1912. 


















































































200 CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 

[Exhibit No 1, page 92.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States by clerk of 
court in miscellaneous earnings and fines collected. 

APRIL 1 TO JUNE 30, 1912. 


Miscellaneous earnings from indi¬ 
viduals. 

Miscellaneous earnings charged 
against Government. 

Fines collected in criminal actions. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

341 

342 

$0.45 
.45 

459 

459 

$0.98 

.98 

340 

$0.75 

1.70 

459 

459 

$1.63 

3.70 

51 

$500.00 

@511 
Rou- 


345 




bles 
970.88 


343 

.45 

459 

.98 

347 

1.70 

459 

3.70 



@102- 

459- 

$990.30 

344 

.35 

459 

.76 

64 

150.00 

326.79 

346 

.55 

459 

1.20 














2.25 


4.90 


4.15 


9.03 


650.00 


1,317.09 








Accounted by 

►Shanghai, China, July 1, 1912. 


(Signed) James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 93.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

Summary of fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States, by 

clerk of court. 

APRIL 1 TO JUNE 30,1912. 


Dr. 

fees earned: Mexican. 

Civil actions. $210.14 

Estate actions. 145.39 

Miscellaneous earnings from individ¬ 
uals . 4.90 

Miscellaneous earnings from Govern¬ 
ment. 9.03 

Criminal (charged to Govern¬ 
ment) . 152.44 

Criminal (costs collected). 46.52 

Fines collected.1,317.09 

Fees collected earned in previous 
quarters. 85.36 


1,970.87 


Cr. 

Be fees uncollected: Mexican. 

E state actions. $6.47 

Miscellaneous earnings. 1.96 

Government (criminal). 152.44 

Government (miscellaneous). 9.03 

By International Bank check No. 71869 
to D. A. Wilson, junior, disbursing offi¬ 
cer of the United States Court for China, 
for Mexican, $1,800.97. 1,800.97 


1,970.87 


Accounted by: 

Shanghai, China, July 1, 1912. 


(Signed) 


James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 




















































CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


201 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 94.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States by clerk of 

court in civil, criminal, and estate actions. 

JULY 1 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1912. 


Estate actions. 

Civil actions. 

Criminal actions. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

5. 

$0.25 

.25 

.50 

.25 

.40 

1.25 

.85 

6.35 

4.05 

$0,554 

.415 

.416 

.434 

.459 

.480 

.480 

.480 

.480 

$0.45 

.60 

1.20 

.57 

.87 

2.60 

1.77 

13.22 

8.43 

105 

108 

109 

$0.15 

.30 

.80 

$0.459 
.459 
.480 

$0.33 

.65 

1.66 

45 

63 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

$0.10 
1.00 
.10 
19.80 
2.60 
2.15 
.10 
2.20 
5.20 

$0,424 

.459 

.459 

.459 

.480 

.480 

.480 

.480 

.480 

$0.23 
• 2.17 

.22 
43.13 
5.42 
4.47 
.21 
4.58 
10.83 

72. 

119. 

124. 

125. 





128. 





129. 





130. 





131. 











14.15 

29.71 

1.25 

2.64 

33.25 

71.26 


Accounted by 

Shanghai, China, October 28, 1912. 


(Signed) James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 95.] 

united states court for china. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States, by clerk of 

court in miscellaneous earnings. 

JULY 1 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1912. 


No. 


Miscellaneous earnings 
from individuals. 



Gold. 

Rate. 

Mexican. 

348. 

$0.55 

1.05 

2.80 

t0. 480 
.480 
.480 

$1.15 
2.18 
5.83 

349. 

350. 


4.40 


9.16 


Accounted by 


Shanghai, China, October 28, 1912. 


(Signed) 


James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 























































202 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 96.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

Summary of fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States by 

clerk of court. 

JULY 1 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1912. 


To fees earned: Dr. Mexican. 

Civil actions. $2.64 

Estate actions. 29.71 

Miscellaneous earnings (from individ¬ 
uals). 9.16 

Criminal (charged to Government). 71.26 

Fees collected, earned in previous quar¬ 
ters. 44.93 


157.70 


By fees uncollected: Cr. Mexican. 

Estate actions. $4.37 

Miscellaneous earnings (from individ¬ 
uals) . 2.18 

Criminal (Government). 71.26 

By International Bank check No. 71873 to 
D. A. Wilson, junior, disbursing officer 
of the United States Court for China, for 
Mexican $79.89... 79.89 


157.70 


Accounted by 

Shanghai, China, October 28 , 1912. 


(Signed) James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 97.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States by clerk of 

court in miscellaneous earnings. 

OCTOBER 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 1912. * 


Miscellaneous earnings from individuals. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mexi¬ 

can. 

352. 

$0.45 

1.30 

.60 

.10 

.30 

1.05 

$0.490 
.490 
.490 
.490 
.490 
.490 

$0.92 
2.65 
1.22 
.20 
.61 
2.14 

3535. 

354. 

356. 

357. 

358. 


3.80 


7.74 


Miscellaneous earnings charged against Government. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mexi¬ 

can. 

351. 

$1.70 

1.70 

$0.490 
.490 

$3.47 
3.47 

355. 



3.40 


6.94 




Accounted by— 


(Signed) James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court . 


Shanghai, China, January 9, 1913. 













































CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


203 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 98.] 

United States Court for China. 

Summary of fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States, 

by clerk of court. 

OCTOBER 1 TO DECEMBER 31,1912. 


To fees earned: Dr. Mexican. 

Civil actions.$146.29 

Estate actions. 109.12 

Miscellaneous earnings (from individ¬ 
uals) . 7.74 

Miscellaneous earnings (charged to 

Government). 6.94 

Criminal (charged to Government)_ 46.23 

Fees collected, earned in previous 
quarters. 40.90 


357.22 


By fees uncollected: Cr. Mexican. 


Civil actions. $0.61 

Estate actions. 25.92 

Miscellaneous earnings (from individ¬ 
uals). 1.22 

Miscellaneous earnings (charged to Gov¬ 
ernment). 6.94 

Criminal (charged to Government). 46.23 

By International Bank check No. 71887 to 
D. A. Wilson, junior, disbursing officer of 
the United States Court for China, for 
Mexican, $276.30. 276.30 


357.22 


Accounted by 


Shanghai, China, January 9, 1913. 


(Signed) James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 99.] 


UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

Fees earned from individuals and corporations and from the United States by clerk of 

court in civil, criminal, and estate actions . 

OCTOBER 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 1912. 


Civil actions. 

Criminal actions. 

Estate actions. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

74. 

$1.50 

$0.407 

$3?69 

64 

$0.30 

$0.159 

$0.65 

58 

$0.15 

$0. 542 

$0.27 

77. 

1.20 

.427 

2.81 

67 

.85 

.480 

1.77 

72 

1.15 

.415 

2.77 

85. 

1.80 

.425 

4.23 

68 

.90 

.480 

1.87 

87 

.25 

.407 

.61 

106. 

1.50 

.459 

3.27 

69 

9.70 

. 480 

20.21 

92 

1.90 

.407 

4.67 

107. 

.45 

.459 

.98 

72 

8.20 

.490 

16. 73 

104 

.40 

.425 

.94 

108. 

12.86 

.459 

28.02 

73 

1.80 

.490 

3.67 

114 

1.40 

.438 

3.20 

110. 

4.97 

.490 

10.14 

74 

.65 

.490 

1.33 

119 

2.15 

.416 

5.17 

Ill 

1.10 

.490 

2.24 





121 

.15 

.416 

.36 

112 

.30 

.490 

.61 





122 

1.40 

.416 

3.36 

113 

20.00 

.490 

40.82 





123 

.15 

.434 

.34 














45.68 


96.81 


22. 40 


46.23 


9.10 


21. 69 

• 











Carry forward 

























































204 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 100.] 


Brought forward. 


Civil actions. 

Criminal actions. 

Estate actions. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 

No. 

1 

Gold. 

Rate. 

Mex. 


$45.68 
18.95 
1.10 
1.15 
1.10 
1.05 
.90 


$96.81 
38.67 
2.24 
2.35 
2.24 
2.14 
1.84 


$22.40 


$46.23 


$9.10 
.30 
1.10 
5.00 
5.50 
1.00 
.80 
5.90 
8.20 
7.55 
.50 
6.30 
.35 


$21.69 
.6$ 
2.40 
10.42 
11.45 
2.08 
1.66 
12.04 
16.73 
15.41 
1.02 
12.86 
.71 

114. 

$0.490 
.490 
.490 
.490 
.490 
.490 



125 

126 
128 

129 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

136 

137 

$0.459 
.459 
.480 
.480 
.480 
.480 
.480 
.490 
.490 
.490 
.490 

115. 





116. 





117. 





118. 





119. 



























































69.93 


146.29 


22.40 


46.23 


51.60 


109.12 







Accounted by— 


Shanghai, China, January 9, 1913. 


(Signed) James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 101.] 

United States Court for China. 

Estate No. 62: W. Blanchard. 

No. 3265.] Shanghai, China, September 19, 1910. 

The honorable the Treasurer of the United States, 

Washington. 

Sir: Captain William Blanchard, an American citizen, who was for many years a 
pilot at Tientsin, China, died on February 20, 1908, in London, England, leaving an 
estate in China which has been administered under the direction of the United 
States Court for China by John M. Dickinson, a friend and associate of the deceased 
whose nationality is understood to be Danish. No will has been found, and, after 
diligent search, no heirs of the deceased have been found. 

On the application of Mr. Dickinson the court ordered that he pay into court a 
portion of said estate, namely, Tientsin taels 45,000.00, and Mr. Dickinson paid 
this sum into court on February 26, 1910, by depositing it in my official account in 
the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation at Tientsin, China. I have ap¬ 
plied to the court for authority and direction to pay this sum into the Treasury of the 
United States under Revised Statute 1709. In view of the probable granting of this 
request, I have respectfully to inquire in what form the payment into the Treasury 
shall be made. 

The sum referred to with its accruing interest, 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 102.] 

forms the larger portion of the estate. The remainder is in the care of Mr. Dickinson 
as administrator pending the determination of an action in bankruptcy in this court 
(civil action No. 77; re S. H. Comstock, in bankruptcy), in which the estate of Captain 
Blanchard is a creditor. It is probable that upon the determination of the bankruptcy 
action a final order of distribution of the estate of Captain Blanchard will be made and 
that the residue of his estate will also be paid into the Treasury. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 

















































CHARGES AGAINST RUEUS H. THAYER. 


205 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 103.] 

Enclosure No. 1 in No. 103: Nov. 17, 1910. 

United States Court for China. 

Estate Action No. 62: Estate of William Blanchard. 

Certified copy of decree for deposit of funds of estate in the Treasury of the United 

States. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 104.] 

In the United States Court for China. 

{ Estate action No. 62: Original. Paper No. —. Filed 
at Shanghai, October 29 1910. 

Edw. H. Murray, 

Clerk of Court. 

Decree for deposit offunds of estate in the Treasury of the United States. 

Whereas at Tientsin, China, on February fourth, 1910, John M. Dickinson, admin¬ 
istrator of the estate of William Blanchard, a citizen of the United States of America, 
resident in Tientsin, China, and pursuing the occupation of a marine pilot at Taku, 
near said Tientsin, deceased, in London, England, on February twentieth, 1908, 
appeared before the court and showed that after diligent search no will of said 
deceased and no heirs of said deceased had been found; and whereas said adminis¬ 
trator for the purpose of safe-keeping pending the final settlement of said estate, the 
sum of Tientsin taels forty-five thousand (Tientsin taels 45,000.00) applied to pay 
said sum into court; and whereas said sum of Tientsin taels forty-five thousand 
(Tientsin taels 45,000.00) was, in compliance with an order granting said application, 
paid by said J. M. Dickinson, administrator, into the official account of F. E. Hinck¬ 
ley, clerk of the United States court for China, in the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank¬ 
ing Corporation at Tientsin, China, on February twenty-six, 1910; and whereas, said 
F. E. Hinckley, clerk of court, has applied to be relieved of the responsibility of 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 105.] 

caring for such funds; and whereas from the records of the estate it appears that said 
sum of Tientsin taels forty-five thousand (Tientsin taels 45,000.00) may now be made 
subject to a decree of final distribution; 

It is by the court ordered that said F. E. Hinckley, clerk of court, be and he is 
hereby authorized and directed after deducting court fees due for receiving, keeping 
and paying out said sum of Tientsin taels forty-five thousand (Tientsin taels 45,000.00) 
to pay into the Treasury of the United States the residue thereof with interest accru¬ 
ing on said sum of Tientsin taels forty-five thousand (Tientsin taels 45,000.00) to be 
held in trust for the legal claimant, should such a legal claimant appear and demand 
the same under the statutes and laws of the United States. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge of the United States Court for China. 

Shanghai, China, October 29, 1910. 


206 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 106.] 

In the United States Court for China. 

Certificate. 

I, Edward H. Murray, clerk of the United States Court for China, hereby certify 
that I have compared with the original of record in the registry of the court, the copy 
of a document hereto attached under seal of court, namely: 

United States Court for China. Estate Action No. 62: Estate of William Blanchard, 
certified copy of decree for deposit of funds of estate in the Treasury of the United 
States, October 29, 1910; and that I find the same to be a true copy and of the whole 
of said original. 

Witness the seal of court, with my hand hereunto set, at Shanghai, China, October 
twenty-ninth, 1910. 

[seal.] (Signed) Edw. H. Murray, 

Clerk of Court. 

Certificate. 

I, Rufus H. Thayer, judge of the United States Court for China, do hereby certify 
that Edward H. Murray is now, and was at the time of certifying as above, clerk. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 107.] 

of the United States Court for China, and that the attestation of said clerk of court 
is in due form of law and by the proper officer. 

In witness whereof I subscribe my name at Shanghai, China, this twenty-ninth day 
of October, 1910. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge of the United States Court for China. 

Certificate. 

I, Edward H. Murray, clerk of the United States Court for China, hereby certify 
that Honorable Rufus H. Thayer, is now and was at the time of certifying as above 
judge of the United States Court for China, duly commissioned and qualified and that, 
as such, full faith and credit are due all his official acts, and that the above signature 
is his true signature. 

Witness the seal of court with my hand hereunto set at Shanghai, China, October 
twenty-ninth, 1910. 

[seal.] 


(Signed) 


Edw. H. Murray, 
Clerk of Court. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 207 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 108.] 

No. 656.] United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, China, February 16, 1912. 

Estate No. 62: W. Blanchard. 

The Honorable the Treasurer of the United States, 

Washington. 

Sir: I have the honor to enclose herewith certified copy of a decree of this court 
dated January 18,1912, directing that I remit to you the balance of the money collected 
in the estate of William Blanchard, an American citizen dying intestate in China, 
leaving no heirs or next of kin that could be found. Previous remittance was made 
to you in this estate by my predecessor’s despatch No. 103 dated November 17, 1910. 

I enclose herewith first of exchange of New York draft No. 12/142 for gold $539.89 
and 12/155 for $6.76, making a total of $546.75, which is made up as follows: 


Tientsin taels, 845.26...Mex. $1,202. 22 

Balance from deposit on account of costs.. 6. 09 


1 208 31 

Less 1 per cent of $1,202.22, court fee. ’ 120. 22 


1,088. 09 

$1,088.09 at current rate of exchange, gold. 546. 75 


The second of exchange goes to you via Siberia. Kindly send receipt in duplicate 
for the amount of these drafts. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

(Signed) James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 109.] 

United States Court for China. 

Estate action No. 62: Estate of William Blanchard. 
Certified copy of order. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 110.] 

In the United States Court for China. 


Estate of William Blanchard. 


Estate action No. 62, briginal. Paper No. —. Filed 
at Shanghai, January 18, 1912. 

James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 


Order. 


Whereas it appears by the final report of J. M. Dickinson, administrator of the above 
estate, filed with this court on March 14,1911, that there remained a balance belonging 
to said estate of Tientsin taels 845.26 after the payment of all claims against said 
estate, which said sum was remitted to the clerk of this court, to be held by him 
pending the settlement of the insolvent estate of S. H. Comstock, against which the 
above estate had a claim; 

And whereas said Comstock estate has now been fully settled and determined and 
nothing found to be due this estate therefrom. 

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the clerk of this court be, and he hereby is, author¬ 
ized and directed, after deducting the court fees due for receiving, keeping, and paying 
out the said sum of Tientsin taels 845 26, to pay to the Treasury of the United States 
the residue thereof, in accordance with the terms of a previous decree of this court 
dated October 29, 1910. 

It is further ordered and decreed that said final account of J. M. Dickinson, ad¬ 
ministrator, be, and hereby is, approved and said J. M. Dickinson discharged from 
further duties as such administrator. 

(Sg’d) Rufus H. Thayer, Judge. 

Shanghai, China, January 18, 1912. 









208 


CHARGES AGAINST RUE US H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 111.] 

In the United States Court for China. 


Certificate. 


I, James B. Davies, clerk of the United States Court for China, hereby certify that 
I have compared with the original of record in the registry of the court the copy of a 
document hereto attached under seal of court, namely— 

United States Court for China. Estate Action No. 62: Estate of William Blanchard, 
certified copy of order, January 18, 1912; 

and that I find the same to be a true copy and of the whole of said original. 

Witness the seal of court with my hand hereunto set at Shanghai, China, January 
eighteenth, 1912. 

[seal.1 James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 


Certificate. 


I, Rufus H. Thayer, judge of the United States Court for China, do hereby certify 
that James B. Davies is now and was at the time of certifying as above, clerk 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 112.] 

of the United States Court for China, and that the attestation of said clerk of court is 
in due form of law and by the proper officer. 

In witness whereof I subscribe my name at Shanghai, China, this eighteenth day 
of January, 1912. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge of the United States Court for China. 

Certificate. 

I, James B. Davies, clerk of the United States Court for China, hereby certify that 
Honorable Rufus H. Thayer, is now, and was at the time of certifying as above, judge 
of the United States Court for China, duly commissioned and qualified, and that, as 
such, full faith and credit are due all his official acts, and that the above signature is 
his true signature. 

Witness the seal of court with my hand hereunto set at Shanghai, China, January 
eighteenth, 1912. 

[seal.] (Signed) James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 113.] 

Offices of Auditor for the State and Other Departments. 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES. 

June 22, 1912. 

The amount of $51.08 to be covered into the Treasury in the name of James B. Davies, 
clerk of United States Court for China, to the credit of estate of decedents’ trust fund 
and to the personal credit of the estate of William Blanchard, deceased. 

Also to the personal credit of the said clerk of court on account of miscellaneous 
receipts. 

Please forward duplicate certificate of deposit to this office. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUEUS H. THAYER. 


209 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 114.] 

United States Court for China, 
Shanghai, China, November 24, 1908. 

No. 1524.] 

The honorable the Treasurer of the United States, 

Washington, U. S. A. 

Sir: Under instructions (initialed A. C. L.) dated October 23, 1908, from the 
Acting Auditor of the Treasury Department, authorizing me to pay to your order by 
bank draft or bill of exchange the residue in court of the estate of Cossette Denvers, 
an American citizen, which under decree of this court of August 21, 1908, was declared 
an escheat to the United States, I enclose International Banking Corporation, first of 
exchange draft No. 7/368 on New York for gold $1,229.89 endorsed payable to the 


order of the Treasurer of the United States. 

The amount of the face of the draft is computed as follows: 

1908. Dr. Cr. 

Sept. 18. Paid into court by U. S. consul general at Shanghai, 
appointed by the court ex officio administrator, 

Mexican $3,022.19, at 554.$1, 674. 29 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 115.] 

Dr. Cr. 

Forward. $1,674.29 

1908. 

Nov. 20. Interest on current deposit in International Bank, 

Shanghai, Mexican $3,022.19, at 2 per cent. 5. 78 


1, 680. 07 

Nov. 20. Less balance of court fees on closing probate docket, 

Mexican $24.44. $13. 54 

Balance at credit for payment into the Treasury, Mex¬ 
ican $3,008.18, at 554. 1, 666. 53 


1,680.07 1,680.07 

The rates were 5525 and 74. The rate at which the estate is computed in the pro¬ 
bate docket is the Treasury rate for the quarter in which the estate was brought into 
court—that is, the March quarter, 1908—that rate being 554. 

I have respectfully to request receipt in duplicate. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 


9997—13-14 









210 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 116.] 


January 30, 1911. 


A. 0. L. 

Frank E. Hinckley, Esquire, 

Cleric United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, China. 

Sir: Your accounts for the quarter ended June 30, 1910, have been settled by cert. 
No. 7173, diplomatic fiscal officers, as follows: 


Salary, 1910, balance due to the United States.. $768. 93 

Miscellaneous receipts, fees, and costs, judicial, balance due to the United 
States. 40. 77 


Sum of balances due to the United States. 809. 70 

No statement of account by you. 


Difference.. 809.70 

Thus explained: 

1. Amount of your draft on the Secretary of State, dated April 30, 1910. on 

account of salary from April 1 to 30, 1910, paid and charged in settle¬ 
ment, and suspended for a statement of your salary account, as clerk of 
court. 268. 93 

2. Amount receipted for by you from yourself as disbursing officer for the 

period from May 1 to June 30, 1910, charged to you, and suspended as 
in item No. 1. 500. 00 

3. Item of difference No. 2, of office letter of February 14, 1908, now disal¬ 

lowed, being for interest earned on deposit of Government funds as 
reported by you July 27, 1907. 31.19 


800.12 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 117.] 

Brought forward.$800.12 

4. Item of difference S 2 of office letter of May 1, 1909, being for one per 

cent of the sum of $1,600.00 Mex. forfeited as security on the bail bond 
of Frederick Hudson, retained by you in September quarter, 1908, as 
your fee, now disallowed ... 6. 83 

5. Amounts retained by you on collections in June quarter, 1910, for clerk’s 

one per cent fee on the said collections as follows: Suspended for any¬ 
thing you may have to offer showing why the amounts should not be 
disallowed: 


Fine on George F. Curtis, attorney. $0. 25 

Fine in case of U. S. v. Mike Kossack. 1. 50 

Fine in case of U. S. v. Harrv Ross. 1. 00 

- 2.75 


Explained difference... 809. 70 


You will please to forward your statement of account and vouchers for the quarter 
ended June 30, 1910, and your accounts as clerk for each quarter thereafter. 

You probably have a voucher for loss by exchange on your draft for $268.93, which 
you have not furnished, and the law requires the rendition of quarterly accounts 
within twenty days after the period to which they relate. (28 Stats., 209.) 

The above items of difference Nos. 3 and 4, aggregating $38.02, are now disallowed, and 
I will thank you to credit the United States with the said amount in your next accounts. 

If you shall have nothing further to offer in regard to item # 5, of $2.75, you will 
also please to credit the United States with this amount, 

Refering to above items 4 and 5, your retention of one per cent on moneys of the 
Government received by you, I will 























CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYEH. 


211 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 118.] 


state that you are not authorized to deduct a fee from Government funds. 

Referring to your letter of July 14, 1910, in response to the request of this office of 
June 4, 1908, stating that you were ready to pay all fees into the Treasury as soon as 
your accounts are approved, I have to state that the returns of said fees of the court 
have not as yet been received at this office. You stated that you would endeavor 
to obtain approval of the accounts at the earliest date practicable. 

This office has to remind you that itemized statements and returns should be made 
by you of all the fees taxed and received.from individuals and parties outside of the 
Government, in the court and for the clerk of the court, from the beginning of yout 
service. (34 Stats. 816.) 

The attention of the Department of State has this day been invited to the matter 
of the preparation of blanks suitable for the rendition of your accounts and of the 
fees of your office, and also of the nonreception of the necessary court returns of fees. 

Respectfully, 


(Signed) G. W. Esterly, 

Actinq Auditor. 
CHB. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 119.] 

Treasury Department, 

Office of Auditor for State and Other Departments, 

Washington, January 30, 1911. 

In replying, quote initials A. O. L.] 

The honorable the Secretary of State, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: I have the honor to enclose herewith for the information of the Department of 
State press copies of two letters of the above date addressed to the clerk and disbursing 
officer of the court for China, Mr. Frank E. Hinckley, in regard to the settlement of 
his accounts for the quarter ended June 30,1910, and in connection with this subject I 
would beg leave to request that suitable blanks be prepared for the rendition of the 
accounts of the court and submitted to the Comptroller of the Treasury for his 
approval. 

And I would also beg leave to suggest the advisability of an inspection being made 
as soon as practicable of the records of the court at Shanghai by a person competent 
to cause complete and satisfactory returns of the business of the court. 

Respectfully, 

G. W. Esterly, Acting Auditor. 

C. H. B. 

(2 enclosures.) 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 120.] 

Treasury Department, 

Office of Auditor for State and Other Departments, 

Washington, February 28, 1911. 

In replying quote initials A. O. L.] 

The honorable the Secretary of State, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: Referring to the letter of this office of January 30,1911, and enclosures, relative 
to the accounts of Mr. Frank E. Hinckley, clerk of the United States Court for China, 
and in which it was suggested the advisability of an inspection of the records of the 
court at Shanghai with a view to causing a complete and satisfactory return of the fees 
of the court to be made, and referring also to the oral message from Mr. Morrison sent 
by Mr. Merritt that this office prepare such information as will serve in making the 
inspection which the department has decided to intrust to an officer already at or 
near the court, I have the honor to submit the following: 

Mr. Hinckley entered upon his duties as clerk of the court July 11, 1906. A letter 
has been received from him dated December 19, 1910, which he has signed as “ Retir¬ 
ing as clerk of court September 30, 1910.” A full and complete official report of his 
fees and earnings and those of the court have never been received from him. 

I enclose herewith a statement marked No. 1, which shows 


212 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 121.] 

all the moneys which have been reported by him up to June 30, 1910. 

Mr. Hinckley was requested by this office June 4, 1908 (enclosure No. 2), to for¬ 
ward complete reports of all the fees taxed and received by him and payable into the 
Treasury under section 9 of the act of June 30, 1906 (34 Stats. L., 816), and in future 
to render a similar report to accompany each of his quarterly accounts. 

Section 9 of the statute reads as follows: 

“The tariff of fees of said officers of the court shall be the same as the tariff already 
fixed for the consular courts in China, subject to amendment from time to time by 
order of the President, and all fees taxed and received shall be paid into the Treasury 
of the United States.” 

Mr. Hinckley replied to the letter of Juoe 4, 1908, on July 18, 1908 (enclosure No. 
3), in which he states that the instructions will receive his early attention, etc. 

He stated in his letter of August 11, 1909 (enclosure No. 4), that an account of the 
official funds of the clerk of the court was then in course of preparation. 

Under date of July 14, 1910, in a lengthy letter relative to some items of difference 
in his accounts, he stated in the last paragraph of the letter that “Under 34 Stat., 
814, section 9, I am due to pay all fees into the Treasury. I am ready to do so as 
soon as my accounts are approved. I will endeavor to obtain approval at the earliest 
date practicable.” 

Enclosed is also a copy of the letter of this office, dated January 30, 1911, addressed 
to Mr. Hinckley, upon the settlement 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 122.] 


of his accounts for the quarter ended June 30, 1910 (enclosure No. 5), to the contents 
of which I invite especial attention. 

I will add to the information upon this subject a copy of the decision of the Comp¬ 
troller of the Treasury, dated April 20, 1910 (XVI Comp. Dec., 658) (enclosure No. 6), 
in regard to the disposition which must be made of the fees taxed and collected in the 
court. 

I have also to state for the information of the inspector that Messrs. E. H. Murray 
and D. A. Wilson, jr., who served as marshal to the court, the former from November 
6 to December 27, 1909, and the latter from December 28, 1909, to April 30, 1910, 
have not made any report of marshal’s fees. 

Respectfully, 


G. W. Easterly, 

Acting Auditor . 

C. H. B. 


(6 enclosures*) 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYE U 


213 


[Exhibit No. 1 , page 123.] 


■p i7' tt ^ SEPTEMBER 8, 1910. 

Trank E. Hinckley, Esquire, 

Special Disbursing Officer of the Department of State for the 

United States Court for China, Shanghai , China. 

n quarter ended March 31, 1910, have been settled by 

Cert. No. 6322, diplomatic fiscal officers, as follows: 


Salaries and expenses of court, 1910, balance due from the United States .. $320 20 
Miscellaneous receipts, fees, and costs, judicial balance due to the United 
States. 127 12 


Net balance due from the United States. 193 . 07 

Balance claimed due from the United States by your account (to compra- 
dore ). 257.49 


Difference. 64. 42 

Thus explained: 

1. Your charge of amount paid Charles H. Williams, February 2 , 1910, for 

per diem compensation for eight days, at the rate of $ 5.00 per day, as 
special assistant to deputy marshal, Tientsin, China, suspended for a 
copy of his appointment and explanation why he was designated special 
assistant to the deputy marshal, Mex., 98.29, $0,407 . 40. 00 

2. Your charge of payment to Judge Rufus H. Thayer, for hotel bill at Hong¬ 

kong from March 19 to 26, 1910, suspended for explanation as to the 
necessity for the judge to remain at Hongkong at public expense during 
this period longer than the other officers of the court on their return 
from Canton, Mex., 120.00, .407. 48. 84 


88 . 84 


[Exhibit No. 1 , page 124.] 

Brought forward.$ 88 . 84 

Less: 

A. Amount of your short charge of court expenses, presumably of one of the 

passages of the prisoner, Faulkner, between Shanghai and Tientsin, Mex. 

60.00.407. 24.42 

Explained difference. 64. 42 

Referring further to above item A of $60 Mexican, if you find that the compradore 
failed to include this amount in his account from which account you took into your 
account the disbursements for the quarter, you will please to debit the United States 
with the amount of $24.42 in your next disbursing account. 

The compradore should furnish you an itemized abstract of his payments to accom¬ 
pany each of your quarterly accounts. 

Referring to item #1 of $40, I will state that there does not appear to be any pro¬ 
vision of law to pay a per diem compensation of $5 except to a deputy marshal, and 
Mr. Williams being a marshal to the consular court at a salary of $ 1,000 per annum 
his appointment would have to be shown to the accounting officers to perform a service 
for which his per diem compensation is provided for by law or regulation. 

And as to item #2, I will thank you to explain the necessity of the judge’s stay in 
Hongkong for one week longer than the other officers, and I will be obliged if you 
will in future accompany your accounts with explanations when apparently neces¬ 
sary for the understanding of the accounting officers. 

Respectfully, 

(Sg’d) Auditor. 















214 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 125.] 

UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA. 

Shanghai, China, October 15, 1910. 

No. 35.] 

Frank E. Hinckley, Esquire, 

Late Special Disbursing Office)', 

Department of State , United States Court for China , Shanghai , China . 

Sir: In reference to explanation required by the Auditor of the Treasury for the 
Department of State as to the necessity for my remaining in Hongkong from March 19 to 
26, 1910, one week longer than the district attorney and stenographer of court, I beg 
to say that the actual session of the court at Canton having closed, the active duties 
of those two officers had ceased, and they, therefore, took the first steamer back after 
returning from Canton to Hongkong. It is understood, of course, that Hongkong is a 
British colony and that this court has no function there, but one must go to Hongkong 
in going to and from Canton. Before the immediate sailing day after return to Hong¬ 
kong from Canton of the next steamer on the line on which we were ticketed and 
almost at the date of sailing, the excursion steamer Cleveland , with some eight hundred 
Americans on board arrived in Hongkong. The manager of this excursion had ar¬ 
ranged for visits of this large number of American tourists to Canton in relays of one 
hundred and fifty to two hundred per day, and much alarm was felt in all quarters 
over the possible troubles that might arise in the city of Canton by the visit of such 
a large number of foreigners at the same time. There had recently been some very 
serious disturbances in Canton, and conditions at the time were in a very unsettled 
state in that city. The consulate in Canton was in charge of a 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 126.] 

very capable but a very young man. He, acting upon instruction, I presume, was 
discouraging such visits, and the local Chinese authorities had practically declared 
that they were unable to assure protection. I was urged to remain in or near Can¬ 
ton until the incident was over. The district attorney had engagements which did 
not permit him to postpone his return. All the meager hotel accommodations avail¬ 
able at Canton had been preempted, Hongkong is only ninety miles distant from 
Canton, with steamer connection twice a day. Yielding to what appeared to be a 
reasonable request which the district attorney urged, I waited over one steamer, at 
which time the incident was over, and fortunately without any undue event. I 
had visited Canton in obedience to the requirements of the statute. In view of quite 
possible trouble it seemed wiser to incur the small charge of a week’s personal expense 
than to run the somewhat serious risk of having shortly to repeat the visit from Shang¬ 
hai at great expense and at serious inconvenience to the court and its business. 

I note also that explanation is desired with reference to the amount paid Charles H. 
Williams on February 2, 1910, for per diem compensation for eight days, at the rate of 
five dollar! per day, as special assistant to the deputy marshal at Tientsin, China. 
The appointment of Mr. Williams was made and his services as deputy marshal ren¬ 
dered with the consent of the consul general. 

The period for which this expenditure was made covers the period of trial of Fred¬ 
erick Taylor Faulkner on the charge of embezzlement at Tientsin and the few days 
that succeeded that trial until the prisoner could be sent to the jail for American 
convicts at Shanghai. At that time the newly appointed marshal of this court had 
not arrived in China and Mr. Edward H. Murray, the stenographer of the court, was 
acting as deputy marshal. During the course of this trial and the further period 
stated “he was not only acting as stenographer of the court but as deputy marshal 
and also as deputy clerk of the court. It was physically impossible for him to have 


CHAKGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


215 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 127.] 

charge of the prisoner to and from the jail and court and perform his other duties. 
Every moment of his time was consumed in writing up his minutes as deputy clerk 
and in his reporting proceedings of the court in other cases which followed the Faulkner 
case. The consul general at Tientsin who, prior to the opening of the session of the 
court had been responsible for the prisoner, had deemed it necessary for his safe keep¬ 
ing to send him to Peking and have him placed in charge of the marine guard of the 
legation, rumors having been current that an effort would be made to secure his 
escape from the British jail in Tientsin. 

In view of these rumors and of the scandal that would follow a possible escape of 
the prisoner, exceptional provisions were necessary. After conviction a few days 
elapsed before the departure of the next boat for Shanghai. It was midwinter, the 
river was frozen at Tientsin and no boats were running except from Chingwangtao, 
eight hours by rail from Tientsin. It was not deemed safe to send the prisoner to 
Chingwangtao in the custody of Mr. Murray alone. The prisoner was a strong, athletic 
man and thought to be somewhat desperate. He had borne himself in an ugly man¬ 
ner during trial and the court regarded that special provisions for his security were 
necessary. Under all these circumstances the court deemed it absolutely necessary 
to appoint some one to have immediate charge of the prisoner and to assist in putting 
him safely on the steamer. Practically there was no one else whom the court could 
designate for this duty other than Mr. Williams, who was marshal for the consulate and 
known by the court to be responsible. 

I make this explanation as you were not personally present and could not have 
personal knowledge of the facts stated. 

Very respectfully, Rufus H. Thayer, Judge. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 128.] 

Voucher No. 260. 

No. 2808.] Shanghai, China, March 31, 1910. 

The United States Court for China in account with Honorable Rufus H. Thayer, 

judge of the court. 

For actual and necessary personal expenses on circuit to Canton, incurred under 
36 Statutes, page 672, March 4 to 29. 1910, twenty-six days, not to exceed gold $10.00 


a day. 

1910 . Mex. Dr. Mex. Cr. 

Mar. 3. To Pacific Mail Steamship Company, one first-class re¬ 
turn passage Shanghai to Hongkong: voucher No. 1- $99.00 

To service on board S. S. Manchuria”; no voucher- 5.00 

To table water on board S. S. “ Manchuria ”: no voucher.. 3.00 

No ticket to Canton: no voucher. 8. 00 

To food on steamer to Canton and return; no voucher... 6.00 

To chair and baggage to hotel at Canton; no voucher- 4.00 

12. To Victoria Hotel, Canton, board and lodging, chits and 

mineral waters: voucher No. 2. 46. 58 

26. To Hongkong Hotel, Hongkong, board and lodging from 

March 7 to 26, inclusive; voucher No. 3. 287.83 


Forward. 459. 41 







216 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 129.] 

No. 2808.] 

Voucher No. 260. 

Mex. Dr. Mex. Cr. 

1910. Brought forward. $459.41 

Mar. 26. To services of baggage porters at Hongkong; 

no voucher... .40 

To services on board S. S. “ Chiyo Maru ’’; 

no voucher. 5. 00 

To table waters on board S. S. “Chiyo 

Maru''; no voucher. 3.10 

To services of baggage porters to and from 

steamer, Shanghai; no voucher. 4. 00 

To 2% loss by exchange on expenditure 
on Hongkong dollars, $352.81. 7. 06 

Mar. 29. Balance due. $478. 97 

478. 97 478. 97 

Note. —The statutory allowance of gold, $10.00 a 
day for March 4 to 29, 26 days, or gold, $10.00, at 
Treasury rate, March quarter, 1910, namely 407, 
equal to Mex. $638.82. 

The expenses accounted are. Mex. $478. 97 

At 407 equal.. gold.. $194.94 

The unexpended balance of the allowance is. 159. 85 

At 407 equal to. gold.. 65. 06 

Mex. 638.82 gold.. 260.00 

Accounted by 

(Signed) F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 


No. 

Original Voucher No. 3. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 130.] 

Hongkong, March , 1910. 

Judge Thayer , R. 1241125 (? C$) 20 Dr. to Hongkong Hotel Co., Ld. 


Date. 


Mar. 7 
8 
12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 
19 


Board and 
lodging. 


$13.33 
20 
6 

20 

20 

10 

3.33 

13.33 
20 

20 

13.34 


Launch in 
and out. 


Less launch 
out. 


Chits. Cash. 






























Total. 


$13.33 
20 
6 

20 

20 

10 

16.66 

20 

20 

13.34 


159.33 
2 


161.33 
1.00 


160.33 











































217 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 

[Exhibit No. 1, page 131.] 

Hongkong, March, 1910. 

Judge Thayer, R. 124, 127, and 128, dr. to Hongkong Hotel Co., Ld. 



Hongkong Hotel Co., Ltd. 
Received payment. 
(Stamp.) 


(Signed) Sche Ting, 

26/3/10. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 132.] 

Mexican $478.98.] Shanghai, China, March 81,1910. 

Receipt. 

Received of F. E. Hinckley, disbursing officer of the court, in full of account for 
my actual and necessary personal expenses on circuit to Canton, March 4 to 29, 1910, 
Mexican four hundred and seventy-eight and 97/100 ($478.97) dollars, account for 
which is appended hereto. For the items in the account which have no voucher it 
was impracticable to obtain vouchers. 

(Signed) Rufus H. Thayer. 

Judge of the United States Court for • China. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 133.] 

Treasury Department, 

Office of Assistant Secretary, 

Washington, April 11, 1913. 

Mr. George F. Curtis, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: In compliance with the request contained in letter of Honorable William 
Hughes, dated the 9th instant, I beg to transmit herewith certified copies of certain 
accounts and documents relating to the consular and United States court in China. 

These papers have been sent in accordance with an itemized list prepared by you 
which was forwarded to this department by the Senator. 

Respectfully, 

Jno. Skelton Williams, 

Assistant Secretary. 























218 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 134.] 


Treasury Department, 

Office of Auditor for State and Other Departments, 

Washington. 


George F. Curtis, Esquire, 

545 Florida Avenue NW., Washington. 

Sir: I have to enclose herewith copies of the accounts and documents duly certified, 
which you asked for in your letter of March 29, 1913, as follows: 

(1) Aggregate expenses as summarized by you of the United States Court for China 
for the fiscal years ending June 30th, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912. 

The certificates for 1907 and 1908 did not give the summaries for those fiscal years; 
but the aggregate expenses for those years were as follows: Fiscal year 1907, $15,151.35, 
and 1908, $28,367.69. 

(2) Receipt of Judge Thayer for salary for months of May, June, July, August, Sep¬ 
tember, and October, 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912. 

No receipts of Judge Thayer for the months of May, June, July, and August, 1911. 
He drew drafts on the Secretary of State for his salary for those months. 

(3) Receipt for rent for United States Court for China at Shanghai for the quarters 
of the years 1911 and 1912 (fiscal years). 

(4) Tax receipts for rent for above quarters. 

No tax receipts appear with the accounts for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1911. 

(5) Account of fees by Marshal O’Brien during his term of office as marshal of said 


court. 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 135.] 

(6) Account of fees made by Marshal Wilson during his term of office. 

(7) Account of fees, costs, made by F. E. Hinckley during his term of office as 
clerk of said court. 

(8) Account of fees made by Mr. Davies during his term of office as clerk of said court. 

(9) Letter of Clerk of Court Hinckley, dated September 19, 1910, in re estate, W. 
Blanchard, with any other documents in said estate, transmitting taels 45,000.00 and 
additional transmissions to Treasury Department. 

(10) Similar papers in the case of the Estate of Corsette Denvers—Letter dated 
November 24th. 1908. 

(11) Letter of (A. O. Latham) auditor’s office initialed A. O. L., to F. E. Hinckley, 
asking that he make his return of fees as clerk of court. 

(12) Letter of Auditor to State Department, after failure to get return of accounts 
from said Hinckley, asking State Department to instruct said Hinckley to make said 
return of accounts of fees as clerk. 

(13) Letter of auditor’s office (initialed A. O. L.) addressed to Judge Thayer, asking 
him to explain why he charged the Government for his hotel expenses for one week 
in the British Colony of Hongkong, where he had no jurisdiction while the district 
attorney and stenographer of court had returned to Shanghai. 

Th^s letter was addressed to Mr. Hinckley, special disbursing officer. 

(14) Judge Thayer’s explanation dated October 15th, 1910, in re above charge for 
hotel expenses. 

(15) In response to this number, I have to state that the only returns of balances of 
estates received at this office from the United States Court for China were those of the 
estate of W. Blanchard and of Corsette Denvers, referred to above under Nos. 9 and 10. 

There have been no returns of balances received at this office from the United States 
Consulate General at Shanghai since 1906, nor of estates finally settled. 

I also furnish herewith copies of the bill and receipts of Judge Thayer requested by 


[Exhibit No. 1, page 136.] 

you over the telephone on the 9th instant. 
Respectfully, 


Enclosures as above. 


Auditor. 



CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


219 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 1.] 

No. 473. 

United States of America. 

Department of State. 

To all to whom these presents shall come , greeting: 

I certify that the documents hereto annexed are true copies from the files and 
records of this department. 

In testimony whereof I, W. J. Bryan, Secretary of State, have hereunto caused the 
seal of the Department of State to be affixed and my name subscribed by the chief 
clerk of the said department, at the city of Washington, this 28th day of April, 1913. 
[seal.] \V. j. Bryan, 

Secretary of State , 
By Wm. McNeir, 

Chief Cleric. 

[Exhibit No. 2, page 2.] 

United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, China, February 7, 1911. 

Honorable Philander C. Knox, 

Secretary of State. 

Sir: I have the honor to advise the department that I am contemplating spending 
my vacation this summer in America, but had not anticipated leaving here before pos¬ 
sibly the middle of June. Owing to protracted illness of Mrs. Thayer and the necessity 
of her leaving China at the earliest possible date, under the advice of physicians, I am 
hoping to be able to arrange the business of the court so that I may possibly leave for 
America about the middle of April. So far as I can see now, I think that it will be 
possible for me to do so at that time without embarrassment to the business of the court. 
I shall contemplate returning to Shanghai so as to be ready to resume my work at the 
opening of the next term of court on the first Monday in October next. 

I have deemed it my duty to advise the department of my purpose in this regard 
to enable the President or the Secretary to communicate with me upon this subject 
if any communication may be thought necessary. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

Rufus H. Thayer. 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 3.] 

Department of State, 

No. — Washington, March 14, 1911. 

The Honorable Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, China. 

Sir: The department has received your communication of the 7th ultimo, saying 
that in view of the protracted illness of Mrs. Thayer you will leave for the United 
States about the middle of April on your vacation, and that you contemplate returning 
to Shanghai in order to resume work at the opening of the next term of court on the 
first Monday in October next. 

The department knows of no objection to your leaving Shanghai at the time men¬ 
tioned. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

For Mr. Knox: 


172.3/26 


Wilbur J. Carr. 


220 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 4.] 


United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, China, April 10, 1912. 

No. 718. 

Honorable Philander C. Knox, Secretary of State, 

Washington. 


Dear Mr. Secretary: I beg to advise you that I am leaving Shanghai the latter 
part of May for London, England, to meet Mrs. Thayer. 

Mrs. Thayer was taken seriously ill here in October, 1910, and was continuously ill 
all the following winter. In April, 1911, acting under advice of physicians, I took 
her home, but her recovery was very slow and she was wholly unable to return with 
me when I started back to China in early September. Since that time she has been 
continuously in care of skillful physicians who are much concerned about her present 
condition although believing that she will recover full health by the early autumn. 

She leaves for England late in May and I feel compelled to join her there, hoping 
that she will be able a little later to return with me to China. It is only this dis¬ 
tressing fact that could induce me to leave my post this summer, being myself in vigo¬ 
rous health and having no need or inclination for any extended vacation. The cir¬ 
cumstances being as recited, I feel that I must meet Mrs. Thayer in England and 
that I should advise the President and yourself of my proposed absence and its cause. 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 5.] 

I may say that my absence will substantially coincide with the summer months 
when there is little if any business before the court and that thus litigants will suffer 
the minimum amount of inconvenience. 

I shall leave with a clean docket after an unusually busy term. As the distance 
between Shanghai and London by the Siberian route is now covered in fourteen days, 
it is possible to get back without extraordinary consumption of time in case any emer¬ 
gent condition arises. 

I am stopping at Harbin for a short term of court on my way north and shall open 
the October term in Tientsin upon my way back. 

For the information of the department. I beg to say that my London address will 
care of Brown, Shipley and Company, 123 Pall Mall. 

I have the honor to be, 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

Rufus H. Thayer. 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 6.] 

Department of State, 

Washington, May 31, 1912. 

The honorable Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge of the United States Court for China , Shanghai, China. 

Sir: The department has received your despatch number 718 of the 10th ultimo, 
reporting your intended departure from Shanghai during the latter part of May. 
The information contained therein has been carefully noted. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

For Mr. Knox: 


172.3'51 


Wilbur J. Carr. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


221 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 7.] 

Articles of agreement made and entered into this eighteenth day of May, one thou¬ 
sand nine hundred and eleven, between the China Realty Company (Limited), of 
Shanghai, in the Empire of China, and who and whose successors and assigns are 
hereinafter styled the Lessors of the one part and Amos Parker Wilder, consul general 
for the United States of America at Shanghai, aforesaid, an American citizen, and 
who and whose executors, administrators, and assigns and successors are hereinafter 
styled the Lessee of the other part: 

Witness that the Lessors agree to let and the said Lessee argees to rent the five houses 
and premises Nos. 12 to 16. inclusive, Whangpoo Road, on the Clifton estate, for the 
term of three years commencing on the first day of August, 1911, and terminating at 
noon on the thirty-first day of July, 1914, at the annual rental of Shanghai taels eight 
thousand and four hundred, payable by equal quarterly payments, in approved bank 
notes in Shanghai taels, to the Lessors during the continuance of this term and the * 
first payment for two months amounting to taels 1,400 of the said rent to be made on 
the thirtieth day of September next and subsequent equal quarterly payments to be 
made on the thirty-first day of December, the thirty-first day of March, the thirtieth 
day of June and the thirtieth day of September in every year. 

The Lessors agree to execute, and do at their own expense, subject to a contribution 
from the Lessee as hereinafter mentioned, the alterations and works specified in the 
schedules and plans hereto, and such alterations and works shall be completed before 
the thirty-first day of July, 1911, and the Lessee agrees to pay the sum of Shanghai 
taels two thousand and five hundred as a fixed contribution towards the cost of gaol 
work, when and after such gaol work shall have been' completed in accordance with 
the approved plans and specifications, it being agreed that the iron cages for the pris¬ 
oners and all other special interior fixtures and fittings for the gaol shall at all times 
be the property of the United States Government and may be removed by the Lessee 
without notice to the Lessors and 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 8.] 

further the same shall be removed by the Lessee at the expiration or sooner determina¬ 
tion of the said term at his own expense and all damage done by such removal shall be 
made good by the Lessee. And it is hereby further agreed that the Lessee will, dur¬ 
ing the said term, pay unto the Lessors the said rent hereinbefore mentioned and will 
also pay and discharge all taxes, rates, and assessments whatsoever now or hereafter 
to become payable in respect of the said premises, Chinese Government ground rent 
and municipal land tax alone excepted, and will at all times during the said term 
manage the said premises and act in reference thereto in all respects in accordance 
with the municipal regulations now in force or which may hereafter be enacted for 
the regulation of the foreign settlements or concession at Shanghai, as the case may 
be, where the said premises are situate. That the Lessee shall not assign or underlet 
the said premises or any part thereof or let the whole or any part of the said premises 
except to the United States Department or Federal officials or to members of the 
respective staffs without the previous consent in writing of the Lessors, and that the 
Lessee shall not make any alteration in the external appearance of the said building 
or pull down, alter, or remove any portion of the internal arrangements or erect any 
additional building without submitting the proposed scheme for the approval of and 
obtaining a written license from the Lessors to make such alteration or additions, or 
use the said premises for any other purpose than that of a consulate, with post office, 
jail, judicial, and other offices in connection therewith, or for occupancy by members 
of the respective staffs, without the consent in writing of the Lessors. And it is further 
agreed that (the said premises being put in a good state of repair at the beginning of 
the term) all repairs, or decorations that may at any time during the term of this 
lease become necessary to the inside of the said premises, shall be done by and at the ex- 


222 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 9.] 

pense of the Lessee, but repairs to the main walls or the essential fabric of the house 
and all repairs to the external walls and roof shall be executed by and at the expense 
of the said Lessors, but it shall not be obligatory on the said Lessors to execute any 
such repairs unless and until all rent due in respect of the said premises shall have 
been duly paid by the Lessee in accordance with the Agreement on the part of the 
Lessee hereinbefore contained. Should, however, the main wall or walls or roof 
become destroyed by fire, riot, lightning, or tempest, then it is optional with the 
Lessors whether they shall rebuild the same, and should they decide not to rebuild 
or repair the damage so occasioned, then, in that case, the rent hereby reserved shall 
cease from the end of the month in which such above-mentioned catastrophe shall 
have happened, and the tenancy hereby created shall then terminate and be at an 
end. but should they decide to rebuild the premises it shall be done by and at the 
expense of the Lessors, and in that case, save as aforesaid, no rent shall be charged for 
the term during which the said premises are in course of reconstruction and unfit 
occupation. And it is hereby further agreed, that all sinks of whatsoever nature or 
kind shall be provided by the Lessee and maintained at the Lessee’s sole cost and 
expense. And it is hereby further agreed that the Lessee shall keep all the glass in 
the windows and all hinges, bolts, cabin hooks and fastenings to doors, windows, 
Venetians and shutters, locks, water-service taps, bell and lighting installations, and 
other internal or external fixtures upon and belonging to the premises and house 
drains, gullies, down pipes, and bath discharges in good and sufficient repair, and all 
chimneys properly swept and cleaned during the tenancy, and in the same good and 
sufficient repair to deliver up at the end thereof (reasonable wear and tear and dam¬ 
age by fire, riot, lightning, or tempest alone excepted). And it is hereby further 
agreed that should the Lessee alter, renew, repair, add to, or otherwise deal with any 
of the internal or external fixtures of 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 10.] 

the said premises all such alterations, renewals, repairs, and additions shall forthwith 
be and become the property of the Lessors and the Lessee shall not be entitled to 
remove or dispose of the same or any part thereof at the expiration or sooner deter¬ 
mination of the term hereby granted or at any other time whatsoever. And it is 
hereby further agreed that the Lessee shall not commit or suffer to be committed 
any waste, spoil, or destruction upon the said premises or any part thereof or do or 
suffer to be done therein or thereon any act, matter, or thing which shall or may be 
or grow to the grievance, disturbance, damage, or annoyance of the Lessors or any 
of the neighbouring tenants. And it is hereby further agreed that the Lessee will 
not carry on or suffer to be carried on any dangerous or hazardous trade on the said 
premises, or store or suffer to be stored in or upon the said premises any combustibles 
or other hazardous articles and shall not use or suffer the premises to be used for any 
purpose whereby the insurance of the said premises against fire may be increased 
or invalidated, but such restriction shall not preclude the Lessee from storing such 
ammunition for small arms as is kept by the consular officers for the purpose of defence, 
or such kerosene oil in small quantities as may be necessary for heating purposes, 
or gasoline for motor purposes, as allowed by the Shanghai Fire Insurance Association. 
And it is hereby further agreed that the Lessee will not store or suffer to be stored 
on the said premises any goods, cargo, or other articles that the Lessors may object 
to or anything which may be of such weight as to cause a dangerous strain on the 
floor or fabric of the said premises. And it is hereby further agreed that the Lessee 
will not hold or allow to be held any auction on the premises hereinbefore demised 
without the written consent of the Lessors, but such consent shall not be unreasonably 
withheld provided all claims for rent have been previously satisfied and paid and 
the Lessee has handed in a written undertaking that the auctioneers will make good 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER, 


223 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 11.] 

all damage done to the premises by the removal of the goods and tenants’ fittings and 
that the bell and lighting installation and water service will be left intact, together 
with all the keys of the buildings and fixtures belonging to the Lessors prior to the ter¬ 
mination of this lease. Provided always that nothing herein contained shall relieve 
the Lessee from the responsibility in this behalf assumed by him under the preceding 
clauses hereof. And it is hereby further agreed that at the expiration or sooner deter¬ 
mination of the term hereby granted the Lessee shall and will peaceably and quietly 
leave, surrender, and yield up unto the Lessors the premises hereby agreed to be let, and 
all parts and appurtenances thereof, and fixtures, fastenings, matters, and things thereto 
in any wise belonging or appertaining save as aforesaid in as good and proper condi¬ 
tion as when entered into at the commencement of the agreement, unless prevented 
by fire or other inevitable accident and ordinary wear and tear excepted. And it is 
hereby agreed that at or before the expiration or sooper determination of the term 
hereby granted the Lessee shall remove or cause to be removed all gas meters, gas 
stoves, and all other things whatsoever from the said premises which are upon the said 
premises and are not the property of the Lessors and the Lessee, and all other person 
or persons whatsoever shall after the expiration or sooner determination of the term 
hereby granted be debarred from entering upon the said premises by themselves, 
their agents, or servants, for the purpose of taking away, inspecting, or otherwise deal¬ 
ing with any such things whatsoever as have not been removed from the said premises 
before or at the expiration or sooner determination of the term hereby granted. And 
it is hereby further agreed that the Lessors and their lawfully accredited agents, archi¬ 
tects, surveyors, or workmen may, at all reasonable times enter upon the said premises 
to inspect the same or to make any repairs, renewals, or necessary alterations that the 
Lessors may think fit. And it is hereby further agreed that the Lessee will surrender 
and de- 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 12.] 

liver up during business hours to the Lessors at their offices, at 24a Kiangse Road, 
Shanghai, all the keys of the premises hereinbefore demised at or before noon on last 
day of the term for which the premises hereinbefore mentioned are demised. And 
it is hereby further agreed that if the rent hereinbefore reserved shall be in arrears or 
unpaid for the space of seven days next after the same shall have become due, whether 
the same shall have been legally demanded or not, or in case of the breach, non- 
observance, or nonperformance of any or either of the stipulations or agreements on 
the part of the Lessee hereinbefore contained, it shall be lawful for the Lessors or their 
agents upon the said premises hereby agreed to be let or any part thereof in the name 
of the whole peaceably and quietly to reenter, and the same to have again, retain, 
repossess, and enjoy as if this agreement had never been made, and all other tenants 
and occupiers to expel, put out, and remove, anything herein contained to the contrary 
notwithstanding, provided always the power of reentry hereinbefore given shall not 
be construed to prevent or hinder the Lessors from receiving or enforcing payment 
of the said rent by any means whereby the same is lawfully recoverable or from recover¬ 
ing at law any damage accruing by reason of the breach, nonobservance, or nonper¬ 
formance of any of the conditions or stipulations herein contained. And it is hereby 
further agreed by the Lessee that he, the Lessee, will at all times during the continuance 
of t his agreement keep the said premises in a sanitary state and condition. And that 
the Lessee shall be entitled to break ground or pavements at any suitable spot on the 
premises for the purpose of erecting a flagstaff And it is hereby further agreed that 
at the expiration of this lease on 31st July, 1914, the Lessee shall have the option to 
extend the lease for a further term of two years, namely, to 31st July, 1916, upon the 
same terms and conditions as the present lease, with the exception that there will be no 
option for extension. And it is hereby further agreed that during the con- 


224 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 13.] 

tinuance of this lease the United States Government shall have the first option to 
purchase the property covered by this lease as well as the other buildings on the same 
estate now numbered and known as Nos. 11, 17, 18, and 19 Whangpoo Road, together 
with any land shengkoed in front of B. C. lot 1727, such option to include land and 
improvements and subject to any lease now or hereafter existing. 

Signed by the aforesaid Lessors, China Realty Company (Limited). 

China Realty Company (Ltd.), 
(Sgd.) F. J. Raven, 

Managing Director. 

In the presence of— 

(Sgd.) James B. Davies. 

(Sgd.) Harold M. Hykes. 

Signed by the aforesaid Lessee, Amos Parker Wilder, consul general for the United 
States of America. 

(Sgd) Amos P. Wilder. 

In the presence of— 

(Sgd.) James B. Davies. 

(Sgd.) Harold M. Hykes. 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 14.] 

M-4289. United States Postal Agency, 

Shanghai , China, May 16,1911. 

Amos P. Wilder, Esquire, 

American Consul General, Shanghai, China. 

Sir: I have the honor to state that in consideration of your signing a lease for the 
premises Nos. 12 to 16 Whangpoo Road, Shanghai, China, at an annual rental of 
Shanghai taels eight thousand four hundred ($8,400) and in further consideration of 
your giving occupation to the United States postal agency of No. 16 and part of the 
ground floor of No. 15 during the continuance of that lease I undertake and agree on 
behalf of the United States postal agency at Shanghai to contribute to such annual 
rental at the rate of six hundred dollars, United States currency; and I further under¬ 
take and agree to pay water rates and all taxes on the quarters occupied by the postal 
agency, except the Chinese Government ground rent and the Shanghai municipal 
land tax, which are to be borne by the lessors under the said lease for Nos. 12 to 16 
Whangpoo Road, but the United States postal agency shall not be responsible for the 
general municipal rate on an assessment of rental value in excess of Shanghai taels 
one hundred per month. And I further undertake and agree to make all interior 
repairs that may become necessary in the said premises of the United States postal 
agency after said premises have been altered and placed in thorough repair under the 
lease with the China Realty Co., of May 18th, 1911, in accordance 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 15.] 


with plans and specifications approved by me. 

This agreement is to run from date hereof, contribution to rent as fixed herein to 
begin on August 1, 1911, and the entire agreement to remain and continue in force 
throughout the term for which the lease for Nos. 12 to 16 is made as well as the further 
two years under option contained therein if such option is exercised; and this agree¬ 
ment is and shall be subject to all the terms and conditions contained in said lease, a 
copy of which is to be supplied to the United States Postal Agency. 

I have the honor to be, sir, 

Your obedient servant, 


(Sd.) John M. Darrah, 

Postal Agent. 


225 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 

. [Exhibit No. 2, page 16.] 

Miscl. No. 1434. J 

T at , Shanghai. May 18, 1911. 

J. M. Darrah, Esquire, ’ 

United States Postal Agent , Shanghai. 

® IR: Your letter of May 16, 1911, has been received in which are embodied your 
undertakings and agreements with regard to the signing by me of a lease for the prem¬ 
ises Nos. 12 to 16 W hangpoo Road, inclusive. 

In consideration of those undertakings and agreements, which I hereby accept, I 
nave to-day signed the lease for the above premises for a term of three years from 
August 1st, 1911, with option of extension for a further two years, and I hereby under¬ 
take and agree to give occupancy of house No. 16 and part of the ground floor of house 
No. 15 to the United States Postal Agencv during the continuance of said lease upon 
the terms and conditions expressed in your letter and subject to all the terms and 
conditions of said lease, a copy of which is supplied herewith. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

_ . ^ (Sd.) Amos P. Wilder. 

Enclosure: Copy of lease. 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 17.] 


Amos P. Wilder, Esquire, 

American Consul General, 

Shanghai, China. 


United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, China, May 13, 1911. 


Sir: I have the honor to say that <n consideration of your signing a lease for the 
premises on the Clifton estate Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 Whangpoo Road at an annual 
rental of Shanghai taels eight thousand four hundred (tls. 8,400.00) and in further 
consideration of your giving occupation to the United States court for China of house 
No. 12 during the continuance of that lease, I undertake and agree on behalf of the 
United States court for China to contribute to such annual rental at the rate of twenty 
four hundred dollars United States currency. 

It is further understood that the obligation of the United States court for China for 
rent under said lease shall not exceed in any fiscal year the amount of the appropria¬ 
tion made by the Department of State to the United States court for China for that 
purpose. 

It is further understood and agreed that should the State Department after August 
1, 1911, appropriate any additional money to the consulate, jail, or any department 
other than the court that can be applied to the total annual rental (tls. 8,400 00) that 
there will be a readjustment of proportions of rent now borne by the several depart¬ 
ments reducing the amount of rent agreed herein to be paid for the use of No. 12 
Whangpoo Road by the United States court for China. 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 18.] 

I further undertake and agree to pay water rates and all taxes on said No. 12 Whang- 

E oo Road except the Chinese Government ground rent and the Shanghai municipal 
ind tax, which are to be borne by the lessors under the said lease. The United States 
court for China shall not be responsible for the general municipal rate on an assess¬ 
ment of rental value in excess of Shanghai taels two hundred per month. 

I hereby further undertake and agree to make all interior repairs that may become 
necessary in the said No. 12 after said premises have been altered and placed in 
thorough repair under the lease with the China Realty Company of May 18, 1911, in 
accordance with plans and specifications approved by me. This agreement is to run 
from date hereof contributing to rent as fixed herein to begin on August 1, 1911, and 
this agreement is to remain and continue in force throughout the term for which the 
said lease is made as well as the further two years contained in said lease if it is decided 
to exercise such option, and this agreement is and shall be subject to all terms and 
conditions in said lease, copy of which is to be supplied me. 

I have the honor to be, sir, 

Your obedient servant, 


9997—13-15 


(Sd) D. A. Wilson, Jr., 

Marshal and Disbursing Officer. 



226 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 19.] 

Mispl. No. 1433. 

Shanghai, May 18, 1911. 

D. A. Wilson, Jr., 

Marshal and Disbursing Officer, United States Court for China, Shanghai. 


Sir: Your letter of May 13, 1911, has been received in which are embodied your 
undertakings and agreements with regard to the signing by me of a lease for the 
premises Nos. 12 to 16 Whangpoo Road, inclusive. 

In consideration of those undertakings and agreements, which I hereby accept, I 
have to-day signed the lease for the above premises for a term of three years from 
August 1 , 1911, with option of extension for a further two years, and I hereby under¬ 
take and agree to give occupancy of house No. 12 to the United States court for China 
during the continuance of said lease upon the terms and conditions expressed in 
your letter and subject to all the terms and conditions of said lease, a copy of which 
is supplied herewith. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

(Sd) Amos P. Wilder. 

Enclosure: Copy of lease. 


[Exhibit No. 2 , page 20 .] 

Uopy 0 . 

Compared with No. 614. 

American Consulate General, 

Shanghai, China, February 20, 1913. 

The honorable the Secretary of State, 

Washington. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the department’s instruc¬ 
tion No. 290 of December 28, 1912, and to state that the excess in the charge for rent 
in the contingent expense account of this office for the quarter ended September 30, 
1912, is explained by reference to my despatch No. 311 of June 10, 1911. In that 
despatch I set forth the arrangement by which the rent of the present consular build¬ 
ings was to be met jointly by the consulate, the United States court, the jail, and the 
postal agency. The rent is payable in Shanghai taels each quarter and under the 
arrangement with the court, jail, and postal agency, the consulate pays as its share 
that portion left over after the former’s fixed gold payments have been subtracted 
from the total. This portion has grown with the drop in the silver exchange value 
of gold, as is shown by the following amount of rent paid by this consulate general 
since September 30, 1911: 


September 30, 1911. 

December 31, 1911. 

March 31, 1912. 

June 30, 1912. 

September 30, 1912. 

December 31, 1912.. 

The rent for this present quarter will be $403.20, and 


Rent $167. 74 
$155. 40 
$207. 90 
$279. 30 
$340. 20 
$309. 60 


[Exhibit No. 2 , page 21 .] 

is arrived at as follows: 

Total rent for premises occupied by consulate, U. S. court, jail, and postal agency 
tor quarter ended— 


March 31, 1913. Shanghai T 2 ,100. 00 

At Government rate of .692 equals gold.$ 1 , 453 . 20 

Of this sum the court pays. $600. 00 

the jail pays. 300. 00 

postal agency. 150.00 

1,050.00 1,050.00 

Leaving a balance of.... 403. 20 


To be paid by the consulate general. 

I have the honor to be, sir, 

Your obedient servant, 

Amos P. Wilder, Consul General. 


File No. 125.4. 


















CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


227 


No. 391. 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 22.] 


American Consulate General, 

. , , Shanghai, China, December 22, 1911. 

lhe honorable the Secretary of State, 

Washington. 

Sir: I have the honor to refer again to the consular quarters at this port. 

These premises were occupied on August 1 , 1911, and, repairs and alterations having 
now been completed and rooms finally assigned for the various offices, &c., I now 
have the honor to submit the report called for by paragraph 66 of the Consular Regu¬ 
lations. Much of the information required thereunder has been set out in my despatch 
No. 311 of June 10 , 1911, but is reiterated here in order that all particulars may be 
conveniently grouped in one communication. 

The offices of the consulate general are located at 13 and 14 Whangpoo Road. 

The total amount of rental in the lease which I have signed for the five houses, 12-16 
Whangpoo Road (copy herewith), is taels 8,400 per annum, or, at say 60, about $5,040 
United States currency, per annum, of which 

U. S. Currency. 


The court will pay the equivalent of. $ 2 , 400 

The jail will pay the equivalent of. 1 , 200 

The postal agency will pay the equivalent of. 600 


The balance of taels must be borne by the allowance to the consulate general. 
This balance will vary according to exchange and, at say 60, will equal about $840 
United States currency. 


[Exhibit No. 2 , page 23.] 

My private residence is not in the same buildings or owned by the same landlord, 
and I do not propose to occupy as a residence or for my private purposes any part 
of the rooms paid for out of the rent allowance. 

As set out above, two buildings, 13 and 14 Whangpoo Road, are used for consular 
purposes. No. 13 consists of three floors and an attic. The ground floor has four 
rooms facing the river. These are low and damp and not suitable for public offices. 
Two of these rooms are given over to the Compradore and Chinese staff, the remaining 
two being utilized for commercial and other files. This floor has also a store-room 
and lavatories for the Chinese office staff and one for coolies. 

The second floor, which is reached by an easy flight of stairs, has a hall and three 
good rooms. These are used as land office, shipping or general office, and senior 
vice consul’s office, respectively, the latter filling a long felt want, as privacy is 
constantly demanded by this officer both for conferences and despatch work. All 
three of these rooms face the river and are well lighted and ventilated. This floor 
has lavatory for the foreign male staff. 

The third floor has a hall, three large rooms, and a small one. The room at the 
southwest comer is the consul general’s office, adjoining which is a waiting room, 
much appreciated by the public, as formerly those who waited their turn to see the 
consul general were compelled to do so in an open, cold hallway, whether official or 
civilian, and much adverse criticism on this score was called forth in the old premises. 
Next 





228 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 24.] 

to the waiting room is a small one with filing cabinets and used as an annex to the large 
correspondence room adjoining. These rooms all face the river and are equally as 
well lighted and ventilated as those on the floor below. This floor has a private lava¬ 
tory for the consul general and one for the female stenographers. 

The attic is composed of low-pitched, slant-roof rooms, unsuitable for office purposes. 
Mr. Hanson has sleeping quarters there at present. 

The enclosed plan of No. 13 shows the arrangement of the rooms and their dimensions. 

No. 14, which communicates with No. 13 by a door on the second floor, has no 
rooms on the ground floor serviceable for any but storage purposes. 

The second floor has two large and one small room, all employed for office purposes. 
The largest, which looks into Whangpoo Road, is used as the Consular Court room and 
senior assessor’s office. The next, which adjoins and looks on to the grounds of the 
Japanese consulate general, is the office of the assistant assessor. 

The smaller room, also looking into Whangpoo Road and adjoining the consular court, 
is the office of the marshal of that court, who is also jailer. There is in addition a very 
small room on this floor used by Chinese. 

The three rooms on the floor above are occupied at present by the senior assessor as 
living quarters. 

A plan of the first and second floors of No. 14 is also enclosed, showing arrangement 
and dimensions of rooms therein. 

The consulate is now housed in a manner more in keeping with the importance of 
our country, and it is pleasant to be no longer made the jest of the community because 
of in- 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 25.] 

ferior lodgment. The buildings present a creditable exterior appearance and the 
arrangement and cheerfulness of the offices is favorably commented on by all. Myself 
and staff feel the difference in working in rooms where there is sunlight and pure air, 
while ventilated sanitary lavatories, which were unknown at the old quarters, add 
to the healthful surroundings. 

The location on the river is conspicuous, our flag is visible along the entire water 
front, and the American consulate general is to-day a landmark, whereas in the past it 
was unseen and lost behind unsightly godowns, that emitted unhealthy odors whenever 
their doors were opened. 

The American community is gratified at the improvement, but they, realizing that 
the lease is but a short one, hope that the Government will take steps to acquire a 
permanent home that will be a lasting credit to our country in China. As before pointed 
out, the present site has long been regarded as the one best adapted to our use. 
******* 

I have the honor to be, sir, 

Your obedient servant, 

Amos P. Wilder, 

Consul General . 

Enclosures: 

Copy lease. 

Plan No. 13. 

Plan No. 14. 

Photograph No. 1, in duplicate. 

Photograph No. 2, in duplicate. 

Copy agreement with U. S. court. 

Copy agreement with U. S. postal agency. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


229 


Copied by AC. 
Compared with O. 
No. 452. 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 26.] 


The honorable the Secretary of State, 


American Consulate General, 

Shanghai, China, March 16, 1912. 


Washington. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of the department’s instruction No. 
228, of February 7, 1912, calling for a report as to what amounts should be paid by 
Mr. Hadley and Mr. Hanson for the quarters now occupied by them in the consular 
premises. 

During the first two quarters of the current fiscal year rent paid out of consular con¬ 
tingents for Nos. 13 and 14 Whangpoo Road averaged $161.57 per quarter, or, say, $650 
U. S. currency, per annum. Of this amount two-thirds, or $433.33, can properly be 
taken as rental for No. 13 and one-third, or $216.67, for No. 14. Mr. Hadley’s quarters 
represent probably one-third of the rental value of No. 14, or $72.23, say $75, per 
annum. 


The rooms occupied by Mr. Hanson are in an attic, of little use as working office 
rooms, and represent but a small portion of the rental value of No. 13. In my opinion 
$40 per annum would be a fair proportion to be collected for those rooms. 

I have the honor to be, sir, 

Your obedient servant, W. Roderick Dorsey, 

Vice Consul General in Charge. 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 27.] 

, Department of State, 

Washington, April 26, 1913. 

Mr. George F. Curtis, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: Referring to your call at the department and your request, endorsed by the 
Honorable William Hughes, for certain information in regard to the United States 
Court for China and the American consulate general and consular court at Shanghai, 
I enclose copies of such of the papers desired as are available. The various points 
mentioned in the unsigned letter which you left at the department are referred to 
below in the order mentioned. 


/. Leave of Judge Rufus H. Thayer. 

February 7, 1911, Judge Thayer reported to the department that he had expected 
to leave China on vacation about the middle of June of that year, but on account of 
the protracted illness of Mrs. Thayer it might be necessary to leave about the middle 
of April, and that he contemplated returning to Shanghai so as to be ready for the 
next term of court, the 


230 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 28.] 

first Monday in October. He did not ask for leave and the department, having doubts 
as to its jurisdiction over the movements of a judge of a United States court, merely 
acknowledged his letter with the statement that “the department knows of no 
objection to your leaving Shanghai at the time mentioned. ” 

The records do not show the period during which he was actually absent from 
Shanghai. 

April 10, 1912, Judge Thayer wrote again, “I beg to advise you that I am leaving 
Shanghai the latter part of May for London, England, to meet Mrs. Thayer” who 
“was taken seriously ill in October, 1910, and was continuously ill all of the follow¬ 
ing winter.” She had been unable to return to Shanghai when the judge returned. 
He added, “It is only this distressing fact that could induce me to leave my post this 
summer, being myself in vigorous health and having no need or inclination for any 
extended vacation. The circumstances being as recited, I feel that I must meet 
Mrs. Thayer in England and that I should advise the President and yourself of my 
proposed absence and its cause. 

“ I may say that my absence will substantially coincide with the summer months, 
when there is little if any business before the court, and that thus litigants will suffer 
the minimum amount of inconvenience. 

“ I shall leave with a clean docket after an un- 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 29.] 

usually busy term. As the distance between Shanghai and London by the Siberian 
route is now covered in fourteen days, it is possible to get back without extraordinary 
consumption of time in case any emergent condition arises. 

“I am stopping at Harbin for a short term of court on my way north and shall open 
the October term in Tientsin upon my way back. ’ ’ 

The department, on May 31, 1912, acknowledged receipt of this dispatch and added 
“The information contained therein has been carefully noted.” 

The Judge has, of course, been absent from Shanghai at other times on circuit. 

Copies of Judge Thayer’s two letters and the department’s replies are appended. 

II. Inventories of the estates administered by the consular court at Shanghai. 

The consulate-general has reported deaths and the disposition of effects, showing 
whether the estates were administered in the United States court or the consular 
court and where (book and page) in the records of the office full information regarding 
the deaths, inventories, et cetera, is to be found. Inventories of such estates are not 
on file in the department. The act of June 30, 1906, requires that the consular officers 
shall file sworn inventories within sixty days after 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 30.] 

death, with the clerk of the United States court for China. 

The judge of the consular court makes a semiannual’report as to the nature of the 
estates being administered in that court. An annual return of the consular court 
fees, fines, expenses, and balances, as well as quarterly returns of marshals, are also 
rendered regularly to the department. 

III. Probate jurisdiction of the United States court forVhina. 

The act of June 30, 1906, establishing the United States court for China, gave that 
court “ supervisory control over the discharge by consuls and vice consuls, of the duties 
prescribed by the laws of the United States relating to the estates of decedents in 
China” and required consular officers to file with the United States court, inventories 
of effects, deaths, et cetera, of decedents. The act provides further that consular 
officers “shall pay no claims against the estate without the written approval of the 
judge of said court, nor shall he make sale of any of the assets of said estate without 
first reporting the same to said judge and obtaining a written approval of said sale 
and he shall likewise within ten days after any such sale report the fact of such sale 
to said court and the amount derived therefrom. The said judge shall have power 
to require at any time reports from consuls or vice consuls 





CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


231 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 31.] 

in respect of all their acts and doings relating to the estate of any such deceased person. 
The said court shall have power to require, where it may be necessary, a special bond 
for the faithful performance of his duty, to be given by any consul or vice consul into 
whose possession the estate of any such deceased citizen shall have come, in such 
amount and with such sureties as may be deemed necessary, and for failure to give 
such bond when required, or for failure to properly perform his duties in the premises, 
the court may appoint some other person to take charge of said estate, such person 
having first given bond as aforesaid. A record shall be kept by the clerk of said 
court of all proceedings in respect of any such estate under the provisions hereof.” 

In May, 1907, a case in re probate of will of John Pratt Roberts came up in the- 
United States Court for China and regarding the probate jurisdiction of the United 
States Court that court held as follows: “We hold, therefore, that prior to the inaugu¬ 
ration of this court the consular court of the United States in China had jurisdiction 
in the matter of the estates of Americans decedent in China, in all cases, and that now 
this court has jurisdiction in such matters when the value of the estate involved is 
above $500 United States currency, the consular courts retaining their jurisdiction 

[Exhibit No. 2, p. 32.] 

over those estates which are valued at less than this amount. ’ ’ A copy of this dec ision 
is appended. 

IV. Designation of F. W. Hadley as judge of the consular court. 

In the diplomatic and consular act approved March 2, 1909, Congress provided that 
the judicial authority vested in the consul general at Shanghai should devolve upon 
a vice consul general to be designated from time to time by the Secretary of State, 
and the senior vice consul general at Shanghai was designated as being the best man 
available at the time. In August, 1909, he went on leave without the department’s 
advance authorization, and in the emergency thus created his assistant. Mr. Hadley, 
was designated as judge of the court. 

V. Qualifications of F. E. Hinckley for district attorney. 

It is pertinent to note first that the district attorney of the United States court lor 
China, as well as the judge, marshal, and clerk, is appointed by the President, by and 
with the advice and consent of the Senate, and that on December 10, 1910 (pre¬ 
sumably at the time that Mr. Hinckley’s nomination was before the Senate), the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, at the request of that committee, was 
furnished with the data on file in the department regarding Mr. Hinckley, among 
which was his original application, letters of endorsement, et cetera. Among the 
papers is a letter from one of Mr. Hinckley’s professors, stating 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 33.] 

that Mr. Hinckley has “taken the greater part of the work that is required for the 
degree of bachelor of laws” and has made a specialty of foreign jurisdiction in Eastern 
countries. 

There is also a letter from Judge Thayer stating that “although Dr. Hinckley has 
not had very considerable experience in the active practice of his profession, his 
special studies and his active cooperation with both my predecessor and myself and 
with Mr. Bassett have given such practical experience as in my judgment to make 
him clearly eligible under section 6 of the act (June 30, 1906), creating the court 
which requires that the district attorney shall be a lawyer ‘of good standing and 
experience.”’ 

VI. Lease of consular , court , and other Government premises in Shaghai. 

The consul general at Shanghai signed a lease for the five adjoining houses, known 
as the Clifton estate, numbers 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, Whangpoo Road, the full 
rental to be 8,400 Shanghai taels ($5,812 gold). House No. 12, a large comer house, 
is subleased by the consulate general in writing to the United States Court, for $2,400 
per annum, the amount appropriated by Congress for this purpose. In this lease 
it is stated “It is further understood and agreed that should the State Department, 
after August 1, 1911, appropriate any addi- 


232 


CHARGES AGAINST RUEUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 34.] 


tional money to the consulate or any department other than the court that can be 
applied to the total annual rental (taels 8,400), that there will be a rearrangement 
of proportions of rent now borne by the several departments, reducing the amount 
of rent agreed herein to be paid for the use of No. 12 Whangpoo Road by the United 
States court for China. ” 

The consulate general also subleases in writirg house No. 16 and part of the ground 
floor of No. 15 to the United States postal agency for $600, which amount is paid 
by the Post Office Department. 

The consular jail occupies No. 15, for which $1,200 per annum is appropriated by 
Congress. 

The remainder of the total rent, with the exception of $115 paid for four rooms 
subleased to consular employees, is paid from consular contingent allotment for the 
portion occupied by the consulate general. 

The entire rent is paid as follows: 


Rent, 8,400 taels, at Government rate for March quarter, 1913, 

$.692, equal to about. 

U. S. court for China. 

Jail. 

Postal agency. 

Quarters on third floor of No. 14 and attic of No. 15, rented by 

two consular employees. 

Consulate general (approximately). 


Totals 


$5, 812 


.gold.. 

$2, 400 

.do_ 

1,200 

.do_ 

600 

.do.... 

115 


1,497 

$5,812 do.... 

5,812 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 35.] 

The amount paid by the consulate general is the difference between $4,314 gold, 
paid by the sublessees, and the current equivalent in gold at the time of payment, of 
the total rental of 8,400 taels, and necessarily fluctuates, so that it may be more or 
less than $1,497, according to the rate of exchaDge. 

Copies of the lease and subleases to the United States Court and Postal Agency 
are appended. 

VII. Residential occupation of Government buildings at Shanghai. 

One interpreter, an American, promoted from the student corps, at a compensation 
of $1,500 per annum, occupies an attic room in No. 13 as sleeping quarters, for which 
he pays $40 gold per annum. 

Another interpreter, a promoted student (married), who acts as assessor in the 
mixed court and judge of the consular court, occupies three rooms on the third floor 
of No. 14, for which he pays $75 per annum. 

The department has no information to indicate that the building rented by the 
United States Court is occupied other than for official purposes. 

Nor has it any information regarding the postal agency, which is of course not under 
the jurisdiction 


[Exhibit No. 2, page 36.] 


of the Department of State. 

1 am, sir, your obedient servant, 

John B. Moore. 

Enclosures: 

From Rufus H. Thayer, February 7, 1911. 

To Rufus H. Thayer, March 14, 1911. 

From Rufus H. Thayer, April 10, 1912. 

To Rufus H. Thayer, May 31, 1912. 

Decision in re will of John Pratt Roberts, May, 1907. 

Lease of consular court, et cetera, premises at Shanghai, May 18, 1911. 

From John M. Darral (sublease of postal agency), May 16, 1911. 

To John M. Darral (sublease of postal agency), May 18, 1911. 

From D. A. Wilson, jr. (sublease of U. S. Court, May 13, 1911. 

To D. A. Wilson, jr. (sublease of U. S. Court), May 18, 1911. 

From consul general at Shanghai, No. 614, February 20, 1913. 

From consul general at Shanghai, No. 391, December 22, 1911. 

From consul general at Shanghai, No. 452, March 16, 1912. 











CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


233 


[Exhibit No. 3, page 1.] 

In the United States Court for China, at Shanghai, May, 1907. 

[Re probate of the will of John Pratt Roberts.] 

SYLLABUS. 

The United States has acquired by treaty and established by statute and regulation 
a jurisdiction in China intended to be adequate to the needs of American citizens 
resident therein. It is not, however, specifically provided that the courts of the 
United States in China shall exercise probate jurisdiction and, if such jurisdiction 
exists, it must be by virtue of general power under the treaties and of definite power 
under the common law extended by act of Congres? to citizens of the United States 
and their property in China. 

The common law courts of England exercised a definite probate jurisdiction previous 
to and concurrently with the ecclesiastical courts, and the common law of England is 
at the basis of the American law of administration. 

Whereas courts of probate in the United States are created by statute, it is held that, 
by extending to the courts in China common law powers, Congress intended to give 
these courts powers necessary to put into effect the treaties and to meet the needs of 
citizens of the United States in Cnina. 

The consular courts of the United States in China were therefore made courts of 
probate; and the United States Court for China, having all of the jurisdiction of the 
consular courts, saving in minor actions, is a court of probate with lull powers. 


[Exhibit No. 3, page 2.] 

OPINION. 

Mrs. Rosalie Adelaide Jackson has filed in this court a document purporting to be 
the last will and testament of her father, Captain John Pratt Roberts, an American 
citizen, who resided in Shanghai at the date of his death, and she has asked that the 
same be admitted to probate. 

The petition raises the question whether this court has jurisdiction in the matter of 
the administration of estates of Americans decedent in China. In order to determine 
this question it will be necessary to inquire into the probate jurisdiction of the Ameri¬ 
can consular courts in China prior to the establishment of this court, because the latter 
has no jurisdiction that was not possessed by the former. 

Section 1 of the act of June 30, 1906, creating this court, provides that it shall have 
exclusive jurisdiction in all judicial proceedings whereof jurisdiction may now be 
exercised by the United States consuls and ministers by law and by virtue of treaties 
between the United States and China, except in civil cases where the amount involved 
does not exceed five hundred dollars gold and in criminal cases where the punishment 
does not exceed a fine of one hundred dollars or sixty days’ imprisonment, or both. 
In such cases the consuls retain jurisdiction. 

There can be no doubt that China intended by the treaties of extraterritoriality to 
concede to the United States complete jurisdiction over Americans resident in China 
and over their property located in China; and it is equally certain that Congress, by 
enacting the statute of June 22, 1860, pursuant to the terms of the treaties and for the 
purpose of 


234 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 3, page 3.] 

carrying the same into full force and effect, meant to extend to China a body of laws 
adequate to the needs of American citizens resident therein. 

The treaty of 1858 provides in Article XXVII as follows: 

“All questions in regard to rights, whether of property or of person, arising between 
citizens of the United States in China shall be subject to the jurisdiction and regulated 
by the authorities of their own Government.” 

A portion of the act of Congress of 1860 embodied in Revised Statutes, section 4085, 
enacted for the purpose of carrying into full effect the provisions of the treaties, pro¬ 
vides in respect to ministers and consuls that “Such officers are also invested with 
all the judicial authority necessary to execute the provisions of such treaties, respec¬ 
tively, in regard to civil rights, whether of property or person.” 

This brings ns to a consideration of the question whether Congress extended to 
China a system of laws relating to the administration of estates, which the above- 
named officers were to apply. 

The answer to this question is found in the provisions of Revised Statutes, section 
4086, which reads as follows: 

“Section 4086. Jurisdiction in both criminal and civil matters shall, in all cases, * 
be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, which are 
hereby, so far as is necessary to execute such treaties, respectively, and so far as they 
are suitable to carry the same into effect, extended over all citizens of the United 
States in those countries, and over all others to the extent that the 


[Exhibit No. 3, page 4.] 

terms of the treaties, respectively, justify or require. But in all cases where such laws 
are not adapted to the object or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish 
suitable remedies, the common law and the law of equity and admiralty shall be 
extended in like manner over such citizens and others in those countries; and if 
neither the common law nor the law of equity or admiralty nor the statutes of the 
United States furnish appropriate and sufficient remedies, the ministers in those 
countries, respectively, shall by decrees and regulations which shall have the force 
of law supply such defects and deficiencies.” 

Since neither the general laws of the United States nor the laws relating in particular 
to extraterritorial jurisdiction contain specific provisions on the administration of 
estates, and since the minister has issued no regulations on the subject, it follows that 
the only source from which jurisdiction might be drawn was the common law. 

The question now presents itself, Was the law of probate of wills and the adminis¬ 
tration of estates included in the “common law” which was extended to China by 
the statute? 

The term “common law” has been interpreted by this court to mean: “Those prin¬ 
ciples of the common law of England and those statutes passed in aid thereof, including 
the law administered in the equity, admiralty, and ecclesiastical tribunals, which 
were adapted to the situation and circumstances of the American colonies at the date 
of transfer of sovereignty, as modified, applied, and developed generally by the 
decisions of the State courts and by the decisions of the 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


235 


[Exhibit Np. 3, page 5.] 

United States courts, and incorporated generally into the statutes and constitutions 
of the States.” (United States v. Biddle, March 6, 1907.) 

In order to determine whether the law governing the administration of estates was 
covered by the common law as thus construed, it will be necessary to review the history 
of the law on the subject with a view to ascertaining, first, whether it was a part of 
the common law of England and the statutes passed in aid thereof, and, if so, second, 
whether it has been introduced into the United States as the basis of the American 
law of probate. On account of the meagerness of the library available to the court at 
the present time our investigation will be mainly confined to accounts contained in the 
commentaries of Blackstone and Kent, and Judge Woerner’s work on “The American 
Law of Administration.” The law governing the administration of estates i i England 
is commonly referred to by text writers and judges as a part 3 f the ecclesiastical law, 
which was administered exclusively in the ecclesiastical courts. Though there is 
warrant in the law for this conclusion by reason of the fact that ecclesiastical courts 
exercised almost complete jurisdiction over estates of deceased persons for a long 
period of time in England, yet it will be found upon a close examination of the history 
of the law that the subject was in fact covered by the common law, that estates were 
administered in the courts of common law prior to the establishment of the ecclesi¬ 
astical courts, and that the common-law principles and procedure of the common-law 
courts appeared in the history of the administration of estates through all the centuries 
and have exercised a profound influence on the American law of administration. 


[Exhibit No. 3, page 6.] 

“With us in England,” says Blackstone, “this power of bequeathing is coeval with 
the first rudiments of.the law: for we have no traces or memorials of any time when it 
did not exist * * * But we are not to imagine that this power of bequeathing 
extended originally to all a man’s personal estate. On the contrary, Glanvil will 
inform us that by the common law, as it stood in the reign of Henry the Second, a 
man’s goods were to be divided into three equal parts: of which one went to his heirs 
or lineal descendants, another to his wife, and a third was at his own disposal * * * 
The shares of the wife and children were called their reasonable parts * * * This 
continued to be the law of the land at the time of Magna Charta * * * In the 
reign of King Edward the Third, this right of the wife and children was still held to 
be the universal or common law * * * In case a person made no disposition of 
such of his goods as were testable, whether that were only part or the whole of them, 
he was, and is, said to die intestate; and in such cases it is said, that by the old law 
the King was entitled to seize upon his goods, as the parens patriae, and general trustee 
of the Kingdom. This prerogative the King continued to exercise for some time by his 
own ministers of justice; and probably in the county court where matters of all kinds 
were determined; and it was granted as a franchise to many lords of manors, and 
others, who have to this day a prescriptive right to grant administration to their 
intestate tenants and suitors, in their own courts baron, and other courts, or to have 
their wills there proved, in case they made any disposition. Afterwards, the Crown, 
in favour of the church, invested the prelates with 


236 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 3, page 7.] 

this branch of the prerogative; which was done, saith Perkins, because it was intended 
by the law that spiritual men are of better conscience than laymen, and that they had 
more knowledge what things would conduce to the benefit of the soul of the deceased. 
The goods, therefore, of intestates were given to the ordinary by the crown; * * * 
And, as he had thus the disposition of intestates’ effects, the probate of wills of course 
followed.” (Book II, p. 491.) Continuing, in chapter seven of the third book of 
his commentaries, Blackstone, in discussing the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts, 
says: “Testamentary causes are the only remaining species belonging to the eccle¬ 
siastical jurisdiction; which, as they are certainly of a mere temporal nature, may 
seem at first view a little oddly ranked among matters of a spiritual cognizance. And, 
indeed, they were originally cognizable in the king’s courts of common law, viz, 
the county courts; and afterwards transferred to the jurisdiction of the church by 
the favour of the Crown as a natural consequence of granting to the bishops the admin¬ 
istration of intestates’ effects. * * * At what period of time the ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction of testaments and intestacies began in England is not ascertained by 
any ancient writer. * * * It appears that the foreign clergy were pretty early 
ambitious of this branch of power. * * * It fell within the jurisdiction of the 
spiritual courts by the express words of the charter of King William I, which sepa¬ 
rated those courts from the temporal. And, afterwards, when King Henry I, by his 
coronation charter, directed that the goods of an intestate should be divided for the 
good of his soul, this 


[Exhibit No. 3, page 8.] 

made all intestacies immediately spiritual causes, as much as a legacy to pious uses 
had been before. This, therefore, we may probably conjecture, was the sera * * * 
when the king, by the advice of the prelates, and with the consent of the barons, 
invested the church with this privilege.” (Book III, pp. 95-7.) 

As far as we are able to ascertain, these deductions of Blackstone are based upon 
the rulings of the courts in the Hensloe case (Coke’s Reports, Part IX, 36b) and in 
Snelling’s case (Coke’s Reports, Part Y, 32b). 

The court in Snelling’s case held that: “If the ordinary took the goods into his 
possession, he was chargeable by the common law. And the statute of West, cap. 19, 
was made in affirmance of the common law.” 

The history of the law. as recited in the Hensloe case, seems to have met the approval 
of the annotator of Coke’s Reports, who, in commenting upon the same, uses the fol¬ 
lowing lang age: “It appears to have been a matter of great controversy, to whom 
the probate of wills and granting of administration originally belonged, and whether 
these matters were entirely of ecclesiastical cognizance; the better opinion seems to 
be that the probate of testaments did not originally belong to the ecclesiastical juris¬ 
diction.” 

Again he says: “Wills may be proved, i. e., recorded in any of the courts of common 
law at Westminster and so likewise in the courts of equity, as the chancery or excheq¬ 
uer; so also in the chamber of the city of London, and divers other cities and towns; 
and many lordships and manors have 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


237 


[Exhibit No. 3, page 9.] 

an original right of proving wills. And upon the whole it appears, clearly, that the 
claim and practice of the spiritual courts in this particular was originally a mere usur¬ 
pation.” 

This is also the view taken by Professor Stubbs in his work on the Constitutional 
History of England. He says: “The whole jurisdiction in questions of marriage was, 
owing to the sacramental character ascribed to the ordinance of matrimony, through¬ 
out Christendom a spiritual jurisdiction. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction in testa¬ 
mentary matters and the administration of the goods of persons dying intestate was 
peculiar to England and the sister Kingdoms, and had its origin, it would appear, in 
times soon after the Conquest. In Anglo-Saxon times there seems to have been no 
distinct recognition of the ecclesiastical character of these causes, and even if there 
had been they would have been tried in the county court. Probate of wills is also in 
many cases a privilege of manorial courts, which have nothing ecclesiastical in their 
composition, and represent the more ancient moots in which no doubt the wills of the 
Anglo-Saxons were published. As, however, the testamentary jurisdiction was 
regarded by Glanvill as an undisputed right of the church courts, the date of its com¬ 
mencement can not be put later than the reign of Henry I, and it may possibly be as 
old as the division of lay and spiritual courts"” (Vol. Ill, p. 344.) 

The trust thus vested in the prelates in the course of time was grossly abused. ‘ ‘ The 
common law did not make him (the ordinary), being a spiritual governor, subject to 
temporal suits for such things. And this was a great defect in the common law.” 


[Exhibit No. 3, page 10.] 

(Graysbrook v. Fox, I Plowd., 275, 277.) “The popish clergy,” says Blackstone, 
“took to themselves (under the name of the church and the poor) the whole residue 
of the estate of the deceased, after the partes rationabiles, or two-thirds, of the wife 
and children were divided, without paying even his debts or other charges thereon. 
Thi 3 led to the enactment of the Statute of Westminister II, directing the ordinary 
to pay the intestate’s debts so far as his goods would extend. But even after this 
check to the exorbitant power of the clergy, whereby the ordinary was made liable 
to creditors, yet the residuum after payment of debts still remained in their hands, 
to be applied to whatever purpose his conscience should approve. It was the flagrant 
abuse of this power that again called for legislative interposition; by the Statute of 31 
Edward III, c. 11, the estates of deceased persons were directed to be administered 
by the next of kin of the deceased, if he left no will, and not by the ordinary or any 
of his immediate dependants.” (Woerner, American Law of Administration, vol. I, 
p. 316.) This statute put the representatives of the estates of intestates upon 
the same footing with respect to suits and accounting as executors and made them 
officers of the ordinary. By the statute of 21 Henry VIII, c. 5, the discretion 
of the ordinary in the appointment of administrators to intestate estates was 
enlarged, so as to authorize the appointment of either the widow, or the next of 
kin, or both. The Statutes of Distribution, 22 and 23 Charles II, c. 10, and 29 Charles 
II, c. 30, made distributable among the widow and next of kin, leaving in the hands 


238 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 3, page 11.] 

of the administrator for his own use the third formerly retained by the church, until 
finally by the first statute of I James II, c. 17, this third was made distributable, as 
well as the remainder of the intestate estate. (1 Bradford Surrogate Reports, 26; 
Woerner, American Law of Administration, vol. 1, p. 316; Blackstone, Book II, p. 494, 
495.) , * 

The powers of the spiritural courts were thus restricted to the judicial cognizance 
of the class of cases arising out of the probate of wills, the granting of administration 
and the payment of legacies, and thus remained until, by the statute creating the 
court of probate, their powers in this respect were wholly abrogated. (20 and 21 
Victoria, c. 77.) ' 

We have thus traced in brief outline the history of the law of administration of 
estates in England, wherein it appears that it was a matter cognizable by the common 
law and in the common law courts until about the period of the Norman Conquest; 
that thereafter the jurisdiction over the estates of deceased persons was transferred to 
ecclesiastical courts, proceedings in which, says Blackstone, “were regulated accord¬ 
ing to the practice of the canon and civil law, or rather according to a mixture of both, 
corrected and new modelled by their own peculiar usages and interpositions of courts 
of common law. ” (Book III, p. 100.) 2 

It now becomes necessary to consider how far the principles of the common law 
thus established and tlfe statutes passed in aid thereof were introduced into the various 
States of the Union, and became incorporated into the American law of administration. 

“The English law of devise, ’ ’ says Chancellor Kent, “was imported into this country 
by our ancestors, and incorporated into our colonial jurisprudence, under such modifi¬ 
cations, 


[Exhibit No. 3, page 12.] 

in some instances, as were deemed expedient. ,, (4 Commentaries 504.) 

In discussing the administration of the estates of intestates the same author makes 
the following comment: 

“To avoid repetition and confusion, I shall be obliged to confine myself essentially 
to the discussion of the leading principles of the English law, and assume them to 
be the law of the several States, in all those cases in which some material departure from 
them in essential points can not be clearly ascertained * * * 

“ (1) Of granting administration. When a person died intestate in the early periods 
of the English history, his goods went to the King as the general trustee or guardian 
of the State. This right was afterwards transferred by the Crown to the popish clergy; 
and, we are told, it was so flagrantly abused the Parliament was obliged to interfere 
and take the power of administration entirely from the church and confer it upon those 
who were disposed to a faithful execution of the trust. This produced the statutes 
of 31 Edward III, c. 11 and 21 Henry VIII, c. 5, from which we havo copied the law 
of granting administration in this country * * * 

“ Before the revolution, the power of granting letters testamentary and letters of 
administration resided in New York, in the colonial governor, as judge of the preroga¬ 
tive court, or court of probates of the colony. It was afterwards vested in the court 
of probates. ” (2 Commentaries 408-9.) 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


239 


[Exhibit No. 3, page 13.] 

The learned chancellor then proceeds to give an account of the development of 
the probate courts, and the law of administration in New York, and indicates that 
the same were modelled after and based upon the principles of the common law. 

Judge Woerner in his chapter on the subject of the probate powers as they existed 
at common law and under the English statutes, uses the following language: 

“The common law of England, as affected by the statutes above named (and 
others relating to probate, which), were enacted before the settlement of the Ameri¬ 
can colonies, is at the basis of the American statutes concerning administration, and 
the law in the American States in so far as it has not been supplanted by their own 
statutes.” (Woerner, American Law of Administration, vol. 1 , p. 316.) 

He further states that the origin of our probate system, referable to the English 
spiritual courts, is still recognizable in the decisions of some States as to their mode of 
procedure, although the rules of the civil and common law which govern the eccle¬ 
siastical courts are necessarily greatly modified in the adaptation to widely differ¬ 
ent circumstances and to the spirit of the American people. In New Hampshire 
courts of probate “have a very extensive jurisdiction not conferred by statute, but 
by general reference to the law of the land, that is to that branch of the common 
law known and acted upon for ages, probate or ecclesiastical law,” (Morgan v. 
Dodge, 44 N. H., 255, 258.) In California the superior 


[Exhibit No. 3, page 14.] 

court is by the constitution invested with jurisdiction over probate matters as a part 
of its general jurisdiction the same as its common law and equity powers, and is not, 
therefore, a statutory tribunal, although controlled in the mode of its action by the 
code. (Burris v. Kennedy, 108 Cal., 331, and Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 
Cal., 348.) 

While American courts of probate may properly be said to be purely creatures of 
statute at the present time, yet, as Judge Woerner has pointed out, the law admin¬ 
istered in the Acts of Parliament prior to the date of the transfer of sovereignty. We 
think there can be no question about the proposition that Congress meant to extend 
the law of the administration of estates to China under the term “common law” as 
fully as it meant to extend the law of crimes, which must have been its first considera¬ 
tion in enacting the statutes for the purpose of carrying into force and effect the treaties 
of extraterritoriality with China. 

We hold, therefore, that prior to the inauguration of this court, the consular courts 
of the United States in China had jurisdiction in the matter of the estates of Americans 
decedent in China, in all cases, and that now this court has jurisdiction in such matters 
when the value of the estate involved is above five hundred dollars, United States 
currency, the consular coutts retaining their jurisdiction over those estates which are 
valued at less than this amount. 

The will is admitted to probate and letters testamentary will issue forthwith. 

(Signed) L. R. Wilfley, 

Judge of the United States Court for China. 


Shanghai, China, May 15, 1907. 


240 


CHARGES AGAINST RUEUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 4, page 1.] 

American Consulate General, 

Shanghai, China, September, 1912. 

I, the undersigned, clerk, United States consular court, do hereby certify that the 
documents, all documents and entries of civil action No. 7, hereto annexed and bound 
together with the consular seal, are true and faithful copies of the originals, the same 
having been carefully examined by me, and compared with the said originals, and 
found to agree therewith word for word and figure for figure. 

Given under my hand and the seal of this consulate general, the day and year above 
written. 

T. C. White, 

Cleric, United Slates Consular Court. 


1910 


[Exhibit No. 4, page 2.] 

Copy of Civil Docket Entries, No. 7. 


Debt and leaving jurisdiction. 


K. Tom (tailor) 

vs. 

Miss S. Fischer, alias Thompson. 

May 31. Warrant issued for arrest. 

Defendant arrested and brought to consulate. 

Case docketed, warrant returned and filed. 

Case settled out of court by defendant paying amount of claim, Mex. $235 
and costs, Mex. 15.25. 

Prisoner released. 

[seal.] (Sgd.) T. C. White, 

Cleric of Court . 

The foregoing minutes are approved. 

(Sgd.) Frank W. Hadley, 

Vice Consul General, acting judicially ._ 

h 


[Exhibit No. 4, page 3.] 

In the United States Consular Court, Shanghai, China. 

K. Tom, plaintiff, 
vs. 

Miss S. Fischer, alias Thompson, defendant. 

The petition of the above-named plaintiff respectfully shows to this honorable 
court: 

That the above-named plaintiff is a subject of the Chinese Empire and resides at 
Shanghai, in the Empire of China; 

That the defendant, Miss S. Fischer, alias Thompson, is an American citizen, tem¬ 
porarily residing in Shanghai, China, and within the jurisdiction of this honorable 
court; 

That the defendant, Miss S. Fischer, alias Thompson, is indebted to the plaintiff, K. 
Tom, in the sum of two hundred and thirty-five (235.00) dollars, Shanghai local cur¬ 
rency, for clothing furnished and work performed by the plaintiff, K. Tom, during 
the month of April, 1910; 

That the plaintiff, K. Tom, has requested the defendant, Miss S. Fischer, alias 
Thompson, to pay him the said sum of two hundred and thirty-five ($235.00) dollars, 
Shanghai local currency, but the said defendant has refused and still refuses to pay 
the said sum or any part thereof; 

That defendant, Miss S. Fischer, alias Thompson, is about to leave the jurisdiction 
of this court with the intent of evading the payment of said claim; 

Wherefore plaintiff prays, 

1st. For an order of arrest of said defendant; 

2nd. For judgment against said defendant for the sum of two hundred and thirty- 
five ($235.00) dollars; 

3rd. For the costs of these proceedings; and 


CHAEGES AGAINST EUFUS H. THAYEE. 


241 


[Exhibit No. 4, page 4.] 

4th. For such other, further, or different relief as to the court may seem meet. 
Dated Shanghai, China, May 31st, 1910. 

(Sgd.) K. Tom. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of May, A. D. 1910. 

[seal.] (Sgd.) J. K. Davis, 

American Deputy Consul General , Shanghai, China. 


[Exhibit No. 4, page 5.] 

In the United States Court for the Consular District of Shanghai. 

AFFIDAVIT. 

Personally appeared K. Tom, who makes oath that on during the month of April, 
1910, at Shanghai, China, Miss S. Fischer, alias Thompson, a citizen of the United 
States of America, temporarily residing in Shanghai, Empire of China, became 
indebted to him for material furnished, clothing supplied, and work performed, in 
the sum of two hundred and thirty-five ($235.00) Shanghai local currency, and that 
the said Miss S. Fischer, alias Thompson, unless restrained by an order of this honorable 
court w'ill leave this consular jurisdiction on this date. 

(Sgd.) K. Tom. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of May, 1910. 

[seal.] (Sgd.) J. K. Davis, 

Deputy Consul General. 

In the United States Court for the Consular District of Shanghai. 

Shanghai, May 81st , 1910. 

The United States, K. Tom ] Charge of debt and leaving the consular juris- 
rersus > diction and attempting to evade paymentjof 

Miss S. Fischer, alias Thompson. J the same. 

To the Marshal of the said Court: 

You are hereby commanded to bring before me the body of Miss S. Fischer, alias 
Thompson, if found within this consular jurisdiction, to answer upon a charge ofdebt 
and leaving jurisdiction to evade payment of same. 

And of this writ make due return. 

[seal.] (Sgd.) Frank W. Hadley, 

U. S. Vice Consul General , Judge. 


[Exhibit No. 4, page 6.] 

American Consulate General, 

Shanghai , China , May 31st, 1910. 

Received from T. C. White, marshal consular court, the sum of $228.13 Mex., being 
the amount of K. Tom’s claim against S. Fischer, alias Thompson, in full of account. 

(Sgd.) F. M. Brooks. 


9997—13-16 


242 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 4A.] 

In the United States Court for China. 

Shanghai, China, 31st of May, 1910. 

In the matter of the application of Miss S. Fischer for a writ of habeas corpus. 

To the honorable United States Court for China: 

Your petitioner, S. Fischer, respectfully represents and shows to this honorable 
court that she is a native-born citizen of the State of California, and of the United 
States; that she is unjustly and unlawfully detained in the custody of T. C. White, 
the marshal of the United States consular court at Shanghai, on an alleged criminal 
charge of being indebted to a tailor, and is about to leave China while being so 
indebted, by virtue of a warrant of commitment, a copy of which is hereto attached 
marked Exhibit “A.” 

Your petitioner further shows that there is no judgment of a debt nor of anything 
else against her; that she has not been given the usual five days’ notice to answer a 
civil action. 

Wherefore petitioner prays for an order directing the clerk of this court to issue a 
writ of habeas corpus directed to said Marshal T. C. White to be made immediately 
returnable. 

George F. Curtis, 
Attorney for Petitioner. 


[Exhibit No. 4B.] 

[The San Francisco Dramatic Review, February 19, 1910.] 

SUE TUSHER. 

The above likeness 1 is the dainty, sweet SueTusher, who is creating a lot of talk 
on account of her voice. Sue is singing now at the famous Poodle Dog Restaurant, 
and has become a great favorite since appearing there. Miss Tusher has a very fine 
dramatic soprano voice. She is spoken of and known as “Sue Tusher, the girl with 
the pretty face.” If you want to hear a beautiful voice, don’t miss Sue, any evening, 
at the Poodle Dog. Miss Tusher has had some flattering offers to do concert work, but 
prefers remaining where she is known and recognized as a favorite. 


i Likeness not printed* 



CHARGES AGAINST RTJFUS H. THAYER. 


243 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 1.] 

American Consulate General, 

Shanghai , China, September 19, 1912. 

I, the undersigned, deputy consul general of the United States of America, do hereby 
certify that the documents constituting all the papers in civil action No. 43, hereto 
annexed and bound together with the consular seal, are true and faithful copies of the 
originals, the same having been carefully examined by me and compared with the 
said originals and found to agree therewith word for word and figure for figure. 

Given under my hand and the seal of this consulate general the day and year above 
written. 

[seal.] T. C. White, 

American Deputy Consul General. 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 2.] 

COPY OF CIVIL DOCKET ENTRIES. 

Deposit gold $20.00. 

G. F. Curtis, lawyer for plaintiff. 

Tze Hai Ching, plaintiff,] 

vs. ICivil action No. 43. 

Chas. A. Biddle, defendant.J 

1912. 

June 13. Petition sworn to and filed. 

Gold $20.00 deposited as security for costs. 

This being a petition for a writ of ne exeat , the matter was taken under con¬ 
sideration by the judge of the court before allowing the issue of an order 
to answer. 

June 14. Opinion rendered that this court has no jurisdiction of the case and the 
petition was refused. 

Note —See documents filed in court records. 

(Sgd.) T. C. White, 

Clerk, United States Consular Court. 

The foregoing minutes are hereby approved. 

(Sgd.) Nelson Trusler Johnson, 

Judge Consular Court. 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 3.] 

Received from T. C. White, clerk and marshal of the U. S. Consular Court, Shanghai, 
the sum of U. S'. currency dollars thirteen and cents five and Mexican cents eight 
only, being balance of deposit of gold currency twenty for court fees and certificate 
of petition and motion in case of Tze Hai Ching vs. Chas. A. Biddle. 

(Sgd.) G. F. Curtis. 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 4.] 

American Consulate General, 

Shanghai, China, August 6, 1912. 

I, the undersigned, deputy consul general of the United States of America, do hereby 
certify that the documents hereto annexed and bound together with the consular 
seal are true and faithful copies of the originals, the same having been carefully ex¬ 
amined by me and compared with the said originals and found to agree therewith 
word for word and figure for figure. 

Given under my hand and the seal of this consulate general the day and year above 

written. m „ r 

[seal.] T. c - White, 

L * J American Deputy Consul General. 


244 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 5.] 


Sze Hai Ching, plaintiff, 


Chas. A. Biddle, defendant.. 


In the United States Consular Court, 

Shanghai, China , 13th June, 1912. 

Original bill in equity. Case No. —. 


To the honorable vice consul general of the United States at Shanghai, China, acting 

judicially as judge of the United States Consular Court. 

1. Sze Hai Ching, a Chinese subject, brings this his bill against Chas. A. Biddle, a 
citizen of the State of California of America, heretofore engaged in the hotel business 
in Shanghai, China, and now about to depart to the United States on board the S. S. 
Persia of the Pacific Mail S. S. Co., leaving Shanghai on the 14th day of June, 1912; 

2. That on the 23rd day of October, 1911, a judgment was rendered in the United 
States Court for China agaijist the defendant for $2,954.92 (a certified copy of which is 
hereto annexed) after the defendant had confessed judgment on said date, which 
judgment is still in force, no part thereof having been paid; 

3. That a writ of execution was duly issued by said court on said judgment and a 
return made thereon of nulla bona; 

4. That the defendant has booked a passage for himself and wife on the Pacific 
Mail Company’s S. S. Persia for San Francisco, Cal., leaving Shanghai on the 14th 
day of June, 1912, and your orator verily believes that if the defendant be allowed to 
leave the jurisdiction of this court the plaintiff’s debt will either be entirely lost to 
him or the recovery thereof greatly endangered; 

5. Your orator respectfully shows that the honorable judge of the United States 
Court for China has left the Empire of China, having left Harbin on the 23rd day of 
May, 1912, for 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 6.] 


Europe, and will not return, as your orator is informed and believes, until October 
or November this year, and for this reason your orator can obtain no relief before that 
court to enforce his judgment to the full amount, therefore your orator seeks relief 
in the United States Consular Court, which has a jurisdictional limit of $500.00 gold, 
to recover this said amount of $500.00 gold against the defendant on his outstanding 
judgment of Mexican dollars 2,954.72; 

Wherefore your orator prays as follows: 

1. That this court grant him a writ of ne exeat republica, restraining and forbidding 
the said Chas. A. Biddle, the defendant hereinbefore named, from departing beyond 
the limits of China and out of jurisdiction of this court without leave of this court first 
had; 

2. That your orator may have the discovery of the assets of the defendant and his 
means, or ability to pay the above judgment, to this end therefore that the defendant 
may if he can show why your orator should not have the relief hereby prayed and may 
upon his oath, and according to the best and utmost of his knowledge, remembrance, 
information, and belief, true, direct, and perfect answer make to the several interroga¬ 
tories hereinafter numbered and set forth and attached hereto; 

3. That the court under the said writ of ne exeat restrain the defendant from depart¬ 
ing from China until the sum of $500.00 gold, the jurisdictional limit of this United 
States Consular Court, be paid against the said judgment of the United States Court 
for China for Mexican dollars 2,954.72. 

George F. Curtis, 

Counsel for Plaintiff, 12, Whiteaway, Laidlaw Bldg., Nanking Road. 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 7.] 


United States Consular District,\ 

Shanghai, China. / * 

On this 13th day of June, 1912, before me personally appeared George F. Curtis, 
counsel for the above-named plaintiff, who made solemn oath that he had read the 
foregoing bill of complaint, subscribed by him, and knows the contents thereof, and 
that the same is true of his own knowledge. 

George F. Curtis. 


Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of June, 1912. 

T. C. Wh-te, 

Clerk, United States Consular Court. 



CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


245 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 8.] 

INTERROGATORIES. 

1. What interest have you, if any, in the “Savoy Hotel”; if no interest now, have 
you had any interest; and if so, what have you done with it? 

2. Have you any bank account in the International Bank or in any other bank at 
Shanghai? If you have no bank account now, did you not have a deposit in the 
International Bank; and if so, what has become of this deposit and what amount was 
the deposit when you withdrew it? 

3. Have you any property in Shanghai, real or personal? 

4. Have you any outstanding accounts or debt owing you; and if so, by whom and 
the nature of said debt. 

5. Ho you know, or can you set forth, any other matter or thing which may be a 
benefit or advantage to the parties at issue in this cause, or either of them, or that may 
be material to the subject of this your examination, or the matters in question in this 
cause? If yea, set forth the same fully and at large in your answer. 


Sze 

Chas. 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 9.] 

In the United States Court for China. 

Hai Ching, plaintiff, 
vs. 

A. Biddle, defendant. 



CONFESSION JUDGMENT. 

Now comes the defendant, and, withdrawing the demurrer filed herein, hereby 
consents to and confesses judgment for the principal sum claimed by the plaintiff 
in the amended petition on file herein, together with interest thereon from the 8th day 
of January, 1908, at such rate as may be fixed and allowed by this honorable court. 

C. A. Biddle, Defendant. 

Shanghai, Oct. 23 , 1911. 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 10.] 

Monday, October 23, 1911. 

In open court. 

Sze Hai Ching ] 

vs. [Civil action No. 97. 

Charles A. Biddle. J 

Present: Hon. Rufus H. Thayer, judge, presiding; George F. Curtis, Esq., attorney 
for plaintiff; William S. Flemming, Esq., attorney for defendant. 

Confession of judgment having been filed, judgment rendered for Mexican dollars 
2,954.72, together with interest at 7 per cent per annum from January 8th, 1908, to this 
date. 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 11.] 

In the United States Court for China. 


certificate. 

I, James B. Davies, clerk of the United States Court for China, hereby certify that 
I have compared with the originals of record in the registry of the court the copies of 
documents hereto attached under seal of court, namely, United States Court for China, 
civil action No. 97: Sze Hai Ching v. C. A. Biddle, confession of judgment, clerk’s 
minute entry of October 23, 1911; and that I find the same to be a true copy and of the 
whole of said originals. _ 

Witness the seal of court, with my hand hereunto set, at Shanghai, China, June 

thirteenth, 1912. _ 

r L s 1 (Sgd.) James B. Davies, 

L ' Clerk of Court. 


246 


CHARGES AGAINST RUEUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 5, page —.] 

American Consulate General, 

Shanghai , China ,-, 19 —. 

I, the undersigned, deputy consul general of the United States of America, do hereby 
certify that the documents hereto annexed and bound together with the consular 
seal are true and faithful copies of the originals, the same having been carefully exam¬ 
ined by me and compared with the said originals and found to agree therewith word 
for word and figure for figure. 

Given under my hand and the seal of this consulate general the day and year above 

written. 

[seal.] - T. C. White, 

American Deputy Consul General. 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 12.] 

In the United States Consular Court, Shanghai, China. 

Sze Hai Ching, plaintiff, 
vs. 

Chas. A. Biddle, defendant. 

Now comes the plaintiff in the above-entitled cause by his attorney and moves this 
honorable court to grant a writ of ne exeat in accordance with the prayer of the bill in 
this cause. 

George F. Curtis, 

Counsel for Plaintiff , 12, Whiteaway, Laidlavj Bldg., Nanking Road. 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 13.] 

In the United States Consular Court, Shanghai, China. 

Sze Hai Ching, plaintiff, 
vs. 

Chas. A. Biddle, defendant. 

Upon motion first made by attorney for the plaintiff and upon reading an affidavit 
of his said counsel filed in this cause and the clerk’s certificate of the filing of the 
plaintiff’s bill in this cause on the 13th day of June, 1912, this court orders that a writ 
of ne exeat republica do issue against the said defendant, Chas. A. Biddle, until this 
court make another order to the contrary; and the said writ to be marked for security 
in the sum of $500.00 lawful money of the United States. 

> 

Judge Consular Court. 








247 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 

[Exhibit No. 5, page 14.] 

In the United States Consular Court, Shanghai, China. 

Sze Hai Ohing, plaintiff, 
vs. 

Chas. A. Biddle, defendant. 

President of the United States of America to the Marshal of the Consular Court. 

Shanghai, China, greeting: 

TV hereas it is represented to us in our consular court for Shanghai, China, in equity, 
on the part of Sze Hai Ching, plaintiff, against Chas. A. Biddle, defendant, that he, 
the said defendant, is greatly indebted to the said plaintiff, and designs quickly to go 
into parts without the consular district and out of the Empire of China (as by oath 
made on that behalf appears), which tends Jo the great prejudice and damage of the 
said plaintiff: 

Therefore, in order to prevent this injustice, we do hereby command you that you 
do, without delay, cause the said Chas. A. Biddle personally to appear before you, 
and give sufficient bail or security in the sum of five hundred dollars lawful money 
of the United States that the said Chas. A. Biddle will not go or attempt to go into parts 
without the Empire of China without leave of our said court; and in case the said 
Chas. A. Biddle shall refuse to give bail or security, then you are to commit the said 
Chas. A. Biddle to our consular jail, there to be kept in safe custody until he shall 
do it of his own accord; and when you shall have taken such security you are forthwith 
to make and return a certificate thereof to us in our said consular court, Shanghai, 
China, distinctly and plainly under your hand, together with this writ. 

Judge Consular Court. 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 15.] 


Shanghai, August 6, 1912. 

George F. Curtis, Esq., Dr. to American Consulate General. 



Gold. 

Mex. 

Legation passport fee $1.00. 



Preparing passport application at $1.00. 



Aclmowledging signature at $2.00. 



Administering an oath and certificate thereof at $2.00. 



Acknowledgment of deed at $2.00 . 



Acknowledgment of power of attorney at $2.00. 



Copying_trade-marks (as below). 



Copying_words (at 50c. per first 100 words and 25c. for each additional 100). 

2 certificates of true copy Sze Hai Ching against Chas. A. Biddle, civil action No. 43. 

$4.00 

4.00 

$8.36 


($ 1 G.=$2.09 Mex., Government rate.) 

Received payment. T. C. White, 

Deputy Consul General. 

[Exhibit No. 5, page 16.] 

American Consulate General, 

Shanghai, China, Aug. 6, 1912. 


Statement of court fees in civil action No. 43—Tze Hai Ching v. Chas. A. Biddle. 


June 13. Petition sworn and seal affixed. G. $0. 30 

Petition filed. .10 

Docketing case..... 2. 00 

Entering refusal of petition. .15 


G. $2.55 at Govt, rate Mex. $2.18=Mex. $5.60. 


G. $2. 55 


T. C. White, 
Clerk, United States Consular Court. 

























248 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 17.] 


American Consulate General, 

Shanghai, China, June 13, 1912 . 

Received from G. F. Curtis the sum of gold $20.00 deposit security for costs in civil 
action Sze Hai Ching vs. Chas. A. Biddle. 


Gold $20.00. 


T. C. White, 

Clerk, United States Consular Court. 


No. 50.] 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 18.] 

United States Consular Court, 

Shanghai, China, June 14, 1912. 


Tz Hai Ching v. Charles A. Biddle. 

G. F. Curtis, Esquire, 

Shanqhai. 

Sir: 

1. I would hand you herewith my decision regarding your petition for a writ of ne 
exeat in the above case. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

Nelson Trusler Johnson, 
American Vice Consul General Acting Judicially. 

Enclosure: As stated. 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 19.] 

In the United States Consular Court for the Consular District of Shanghai, China. 

Tze Hai Ching ] 

v. , } 

Charles A. Biddle.J 

This is an action on a judgment rendered in the United States Court for China on 
October 23, 1911, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for Mexican 
$2,954.92, as to which the petitioner alleges that execution was duly issued and 
returned nulla bona and that no payment has been made. The petition is for a writ 
of ne exeat, for discovery of assets and for an order of court in said writ restraining the 
defendant from departing from China “until the sum of gold $500.00, the jurisdictional 
limit of this court, be paid against said judgment.” 

This consular court has a limited jurisdiction described in the statute as not exceed¬ 
ing, as to value of property, gold $500.00, and in order to consider the prayer of peti¬ 
tioner it would be necessary to decide whether a judgment of approximately gold 
$1,450.00 had been entered. It would further be necessary to decide, as this a bill 
in equity, whether all the remedies at law for the obtaining of satisfaction of that 
judgment had been exhausted. This is manifestly beyond the jurisdiction of this 
consular court, and the bill is therefore refused. 

[seal.] Nelson Trusler Johnson, 

Vice Consul General of the United States of America Acting Judicially. 

Shanghai, June 14, 1912. 

[Exhibit No. 5, page 20.] 

American Consulate General, 

Shanghai, China, August 8, 1912. 

I, the undersigned, deputy consul general of the United States of America, do 
hereby certify that the document hereto annexed and bound together with the con¬ 
sular seal is a true and faithful copy of the original, the same having been carefully 
examined by me and compared with the said original and found to agree therewith 
word for word and figure for figure. 

Given under my hand and the seal of this consulate general the day and year above 
written. 

[seal.] T. C. White, 

Clerk, United States Consular Court. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


249 


[Exhibit No. 5, page 21.1 

In the United States Consular Court for the Consular District of Shanghai, China. 

Tze Hai Ching 1 
Charles A. Biddle.} 

This is an action on a judgment rendered in the United States Court for China on 
October 23, 1911, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for Mexican 
$2,954.92, as to which the petitioner alleges that execution was duly issued and 
returned nulla bona and that no payment has been made. The petition is for a writ 
of ne exeat , for discovery of assets and for an order of court in said writ restraining the 
defendant from departing from China “until the sum of gold $500.00, the jurisdictional 
[N. T. J.] limit of this court, be paid against said judgment.” 

This consular court has a limited jurisdiction described in the statute as not exceed¬ 
ing, as to value of property, gold $500.00, and in order to consider the prayer of peti¬ 
tioner it would be necessary to decide whether a judgment of approximately gold 
$1,450.00 had been entered. It would further be necessary to decide, as this is a bill 
in equity, whether all the remedies at law for the obtaining of satisfaction of that 
judgment had been exhausted. This is manifestly beyond the jurisdiction of this 
consular court, and the bill is therefore refused. 

[seal.] (Sgd.) Nelson Trusler Johnson, 

Vice Consul General of the United States of Ametica Acting Judicially . 

Shanghai, June 14, 1912. 







250 


CHARGES AGAINST RUEUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 6.] 


Shanghai, 13th March , 1912. 

Received from Mr. George F. Curtis the sum of Mexican dollars fifteen, deposit to 
secure costs of the Fi. Fa. in the case of Sze Hai Ching vs. Chas. A. Biddle. 

James B. Davies, 

Clerk of U. S. Court. 


[Exhibit No. 6 A, page 1.] 

George Franklin Curtis, 

Attorney and Counsellor-at-Law, 
Whiteaway Laidlaw Building, 13 Nanking Road, 

Shanghai, China , May 6th, 1912. 

Sir: I send you G$35.00 to be deposited in case of Sze Hai Ching against Mr. Chas. 
A. Biddle, and ask the marshal to execute writ, and if necessary to issue another, 
at once on Mr. Biddle on the monies in Mr. Biddle’s name in the International Bank 
in 1, Kiukiang Road, Shanghai. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, George F. Curtisl 

To Clerk of U. S. Court. 


[Exhibit No. 6 A, page 2.] 

United States Court for China, 

No. 742.] Shanghai , China, May 6, 1912. 


Civil action No. 97: 


Sze Hai Ching v. C. A. Biddle. 


Gegrge F. Curtis, Esquire, 

Attorney and Counselor at Law, 

Shanghai, China. 

Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of to-day’s date in the above- 
entitled cause, enclosing gold $35.00 to cover costs on execution. Receipt for same is 
enclosed herewith. 

In the event of the marshal requiring an alias writ, the same will be issued. 

Yours, truly, 


Enclosure: Receipt. 


James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 


[Exhibit No. 6 A, page 3.] 

Gold $35.00.] Shanghai, China, May 6, 1912. 

Civil Action No. 97: 

Sze Hai Ching v. C. A. Biddle. 
receipt. 

Received from George F. Curtis, Esquire, the sum of gold $35.00 as additional 
deposit on account of costs of execution in the above-entitled cause. 

James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court . 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


251 


[Exhibit No. 6 A, page 4.] 

No. 772.] United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, China, June 13, 1912 . 


Civil action No. 97: 

Sze Hai Ching v. C. A. Biddle. 

George F. Curtis, Esquire, 

Attorney and Counselor at Law, 

Shanghai, China. 

Sir: I beg to return to you herewith the gold $35.00 sent me on May 6, 1912, as a 
deposit to cover costs of execution in the above-entitled matter. Kindly sign and 
return the enclosed receipt. 

Yours, truly, James B. Davies, 

Cleric of Court . 

Enclosure: Receipt. 


252 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 7, page 1.] 

No. 201.] 

United States Court for China, 

Shanghai , China , February 1, 1911. 

George F. Curtis, Esquire, 

Whiteaway , Laidlow & Co. Bldg., Shanghai. 

Dear Sir: With reference to the papers left with me this afternoon, before receiv¬ 
ing and subscribing to the same I beg to call your attention to section Nos. 58 and 71 
of the United States Consular Regulations for China, which have been brought to 
my notice by the United States district attorney. 

Yours, trulv, James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court. 


[Exhibit No. 7, page 2.] 

John M. Darrah, a citizen of the United States, is accused by the undersigned, a 
merchant residing and transacting business in Shanghai, of the crime of felony, to wit: 
Perjury committed as follows: 

That the said John M. Darrah, on the 26th day of February, 1907, at Shanghai, was 
the duly appointed, qualified, and acting deputy marshal of the United States Court 
for China; that as said marshal it was then and there lbs duty under the laws of the 
United States to certify under oath to the correctness of a certain fee paid to the 
undersigned, and to fees paid to a certain interpreter and to certain witnesses; that in 
pursuance to his said duty he, the said John M. Darrah, on the said 26th day of Feb¬ 
ruary, 1907, came and appeared at the United States court before F. E. Hinckley, 
clerk of the United States Court for China, an officer authorized by law to administer 
oaths and to administer an oath to the said John M. Darrah; that the said F. E. Hinck¬ 
ley did then and there on the 26th day of February, 1907, administer an oath in due 
form of law to the said John M. Darrah, and being so sworn as aforesaid he, the said 
John M. Darrah, did then and there on the 26th day of February, 1907, at Shanghai, 
China, and in the proceeding entitled The United States versus S. R. Price, 
Schedule of Marshal Fees and Costs, unlawfully, knowingly, corruptly, falsely, and 
feloniously swear, take oath, and certify that the items in said schedule were correct, 
and that they constituted the full record of fees and costs of the marshal in the said 
entitled proceeding, whereas in truth and in fact, as the said John M. Darrah then 
and there well knew, the said schedule was not true and correct; that the undersigned 
was not paid the fee therein named nor any other fee nor did he receive from the 
United States nor from S. R. Price or anyone else the fee therein named or any fee 
or money whatsoever as a witness in said action. 

Whereby he, the said John M. Darrah, did then and there as aforesaid feloniously, 
wilfully, knowingly, and corruptly swear falsely and feloniously commit wilful per¬ 
jury contrary to the form and force of the statute in such cases made and provided, 
to wit, section 5392 U. S. Rev. Statutes, 1878, and United States Penal Code, section 125, 
defining the crime of perjury and contrary to the peace and dignity of the people of 
the United States of America. 

Wherefore the undersigned prays this honorable court for the arrest and trial of 
the said John M. Darrah on the above charge of perjury. 

O. E. Laura, 

78 Range Road. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of January, 1911. 

James B. Davies, 

Clerk of U. S. Court . 


253 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 

[Exhibit No. 8, page 1.] 

No. 425.] United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, China, October 6, 1911. 

Civil Action No. 98: 

Nee Chang Mow v. Andrews and George. 

Mr. Nee Chang Mow, 

Care of G. F. Curtis , Esquire , Attorney, 

Shanghai , China. 

To the clerk of the United States Court for China, American Consulate, Shanghai, 

China, debtor: 

October 6 , 1911. On filing petition, petitioner’s deposit account of costs 

of action .Gold $ 35 . 0 0 

At United States Treasury rate 416, December quarter, 1911, equivalent 

to .Mex. $84.13 

Received payment, October 6 , 1911, by cash, gold, $ 35 . 

James B. Davies, 

Clerk of Court , 


[Exhibit No. 8 , p. 2 .] 

In the United States Court for China, 

Shanghai, China , October 6th, 1911. 

Nee Chang Mow 
vs. 

H. W. Andrews and E. W. George, 

doing business under the firm name of Andrews & George, and against 
H. W. Andrews and E. W. George, severally and jointly. 

For complaint herein the plaintiff alleges as follows: 

1 . That on or about the 30th day of October, 1902, the plaintiff duly commenced 
an action in the court of the United States consulate general at Shanghai, China, 
which said court was a court of special jurisdiction duly created by the laws of the 
United States, against the defendants, by process of subpoena duly issued in said 
action, which was duly served upon the defendants in said Shanghai, China; that 
defendants duly appeared in said action by attorney, and that the said defendant, 
H. W. Andrews, appeared in person, and that such proceedings were thereupon duly 
had in said action; that on or about the 8 th day of January, 1903, the plaintiff recovered 
a judgment, which was duly given by said court, against the defendants for the sum of 
Shanghai taels 2,370.48, with interest at the rate of 7 per cent from January 1st, 1903, 
and costs; that by said judgment “it appears that plaintiff has paid to defendant 
roubles 6,691.02 at 111—taels 6,027.95—for which amount Friede is suing Andrews 
and George, who are in that suit acting as agents for plaintiff. While the defendants 
hold this sum, it is in the nature of a guaranty and must stand without any award 
regarding it until the outcome of the suit of Friede v. Andrews and George is seen;” 
that said suit of said Friede against said defendants has never been tried; that the 
defendants still hold the plaintiff’s 


Amended 
declaration. 
Action on 
judgment. 





254 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER, 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 3.] 

said taels 6,027.95, notwithstanding the fact that they are not within the jurisdiction 
of Russia, nor does it appear from the said judgment that they have any property 
in Port Arthur or elsewhere attached, or otherwise, nor is a suit pending in Port 
Arthur against them by said Friede, nor is it possible for a suit to pend against them 
in a Russian court in Port Arthur, as Port Arthur is now in the hands of the Japanese 
Government, of which fact the plaintiff prays this court to take judicial notice; that 
no part of said judgment for said sum of taels 2,370.48, nor costs nor interests has been 
paid, and no accounting for the said sum of taels 6,027.95 has been made. 

2. That the said suit of Friede vs. Andrews & George was never tried at Port Arthur 
or elsewhere; that shortly after the said judgment was rendered it became impos¬ 
sible to try said case in Port Arthur by reason of the threatened and actual state of 
war between Russia and Japan, of which fact the plaintiff prays this court to take 
judicial notice. 

3. That the said defendants have ever since retained the sum of taels 6,027.95, 
the property of the plaintiff and have refused to account therefor, although requested 
so to do. 

4. That after the rendition of said judgment and the ending of said war the said 
defendants, who up to this time had been copartners in business in Shanghai, incor¬ 
porated under the Hongkong ordinances under the name of Andrews Yon Fischerz & 
George, Ltd., transferred said business and its assets within the jurisdiction of this 
honorable court to the protection of the British flag by virtue of the said incorporation 
under the said Hongkong ordinance, and thereafter the said defendants went to 
Yokohama, Japan, where they as copartners under the firm name of Andrews & George, 
transact a mercantile business. 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 4.] 

5. That the said court of the consulate general at Shanghai, at the time of the rendi¬ 
tion of said judgment, was a court of special jurisdiction which on the 30th day of June, 
1906, in all cases involving more than $500.00 U. S. currency, was transferred to this 
honorable court by virtue of the laws of the United States. 

6. That by the said judgment it appears that the said defendants admitted over¬ 
charging the plaintiff the sum of taels 968.62 and deposited the said sum of taels 
D68.62 in court, but the same has not been paid by the said court to this plaintiff. 

7. That said judgment has not been satisfied, vacated, reversed, modified or appealed 
from and is now in full force and effect. 

8. That the said judgment is for a sum more than $500.00, lawful money of the United 
States, and that the defendant, H. W. Andrews, is temporarily within the jurisdiction 
of this honorable court. 

9. That the defendant, H. W. Andrews, as evidenced by said judgment, is greatly 
indebted to the plaintiff, and designs quickly to go into parts without the jurisdiction 
of this honorable court, which tends to the great prejudice and damage of the said 
plaintiff. 

Wherefore the plaintiff prays, as follows, namely: 

1st. Judgment against the defendants jointly and severally for the sum of Shanghai 
taels 2,370.48, with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the 1st day of 
January, 1903, to payment thereof; 

2d. For costs expended in said court of the United States consulate at Shanghai, as 
official court fees; 

3d. For an accounting of the said sum of taels 6,027.95, with interest thereon at 7 
per cent per annum from the 1st day of January, 1903, to date of payment thereof; 

4th. That a writ of ne exeat republica do issue against the said defendant H. W. An¬ 
drews, until the court 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 5.] 

make another order to the contrary, and that the said writ be marked for security in 
the sum equalling to— 

fa) The amount of said judgment; 

(b) Amount for which said accounting is prayed; 

(c) Interest at 7 per cent per annum on both said sums from 1st January 1903 to 
date hereof; 

(d) Cost of said consular court, together with costs of this court; 

5. And for such other and further relief as to this honorable court seems meet and 
just. 

George F. Curtis, 

Attorney for Plaintiff, Whiteaway Laidlaw Building, Shanghai. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


255 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 6.] 

United States Consular District, 

Shanghai, China, ss. 

Nee Chang Mow, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is the plaintiff 
named m the above-entitled action; that he has read the foregoing declaration and 
knows the contents thereof; that the same is true of Ids own knowledge except as to the 
matters which are therein stated on his information or belief, and as to those matters, 
that he believes it to be true. 

Nee Chang Mow, in Chinese characters. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 17th day of October, 1911. 

(J^B. D.) 

[heal.] James B. Davies, 

Clerk United States Court for China. 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 7.] 

Nee Chang Mow vs. Andrews and George, 
decision. 

On April 8, 1902, the following contract was entered into between Andrews and 
Geprge of Shanghai and the Nee Chang Mow Hong: 

(Exhibit G.) 

CONTRACT. 


Port Arthur, 18/31 March , 1902, 

This agreement, made the 18/31st day of March, 1902, by and between G. S. Friede, 
of Port Arthur, party of the first part, and Andrews and George, of Shanghai, China, 
party of the second part, witnesseth: That the party of first part agrees to sell and 
hereby does sell to the party of the second part certain merchandise, to wit, a certain 
quantity of used copper and brass cartridge shells, amounting to say approximately 
3,900 poods of copper and 9,900 poods of brass, on the following terms: Term one: The 
price of copper to be six roubles per pood, net weight, and price of brass to be 4 roubles 
and 35 kopecks per pood, net weight, 10% of the copper to be charged for as brass, as 
an allowance for brass shells which may be mixed with the copper. These prices are 
to be f. o. b. steamer at Port Arthur. Weights to be taken at ship’s side, and both 
parties to have a representative present to inspect and pass on the weights and condi¬ 
tions of cargo. Term two: The cargo to be delivered f. o. b. steamer Port Arthur in 
not less than two or more than four lots, delivery to be made within thirty days from 
date. Payment. Buyer to open bankers credit in favor of seller and payment to be 
made against surrender of shipping documents to buyer’s bankers at Port Arthur. 
Term four: The buyers, if requested by sellers, agree to arrange with their bankers to 
have the latter pay the Russian Government ninety per cent of the value of goods 
upon arrival at Port Arthur pending their delivery on board steamer, but any expense 
incurred by such arrangement to be borne solely by the seller. Term five: The buyer 
to have the privilege of 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 8.] 

designating steamer or steamers by which cargo shall be shipped. Term six. Cargo 
to be delivered in bags in good shipping condition and marked so as to plainly distin¬ 
guish between copper and brass. Term seven. The foregoing prices are net and free 
of any other charges or commission whatsover. Term eight. The cargo in question 
is that which was” inspected in Mukden, Manchuria, on March 9-22, 1902, by seller 
and buyer’s representative. The agreement to be considered binding on both parties 
upon the deposit of 5,000 roubles, or a suitable guarantee for that amount by both 
parties with bankers at Port Arthur, as a guarantee of the faithful performance of this 
contract. Said 5,000 roubles to be forfeited by the party defaulting in the perform¬ 
ance of their agreement to the other party. In witness whereof both parties havo 
affixed their signature the 18/31st day of March, 1902. 


256 


CHARGES AGAINST RUEUS H. THAYER, 


(Exhibit H.) 

Shanghai, 8th April , 1902. 

Nee Chang Mow, Esq., present. 

Dear Sir: We beg to advise having purchased for your account subject in all par¬ 
ticulars to our contract with Mr. G. S. Friede of Port Arthur, copy of which is herewith 
attached, a quantity of old metal, as follows: About 10,000 poods brass at roubles 4.35 
f. o. b. Port Arthur; about 3,900 poods copper at roubles 6 f. o. b. Port Arthur, more or 
less, which according to our agreement with you, you are to receive and pay for as 
follows: First, security.—As evidence for the faithful performance of this contract, you 
are to deposit with us the sum of taels 5,000. This amount we are to hold as security 
of this contract until all payments have been satisfactorily made by you and the 
entire purchase landed and delivered in Shanghai. As soon as the entire shipment 
has been delivered to you, then we are to return to you these taels 5,000. Second, 
payment.—Further, according to agreement you are to open a credit with the Russo- 
Chinese Bank in our favor for the amount of the above purchase, 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 9.] 

so that we may receive payment upon presentation of our sixty days after sight draft 
on you with B/lading attached in Port Arthur, said draft to be drawn in roubles and to 
be retired under contract settled by us for you to-day at 112f with the Russo-Chinese 
Bank. Third, shipment.—Your representative to proceed to Port Arthur at once to 
be present at weighing of the cargo as per our contract with Mr. Friede. 

Fourth, freight, insurance, duties, as well as any and all charges incurred after cargo 
is on board steamer to be paid by us for your account, all amounts for these purposes 
to be paid us by you as required. 

With the exception of roubles 500, which is one-half the amount to be paid for 
military protection by the Russian Government, you are to have no further expense 
in the transaction except actual outlays which it will be necessary for us to make so 
as to deliver the cargo safely in Shanghai. 

All such amounts to be for your account and to be charged you at actual cost, you to 
have the benefit of any saving we can make. All such payments to be made by us, 
which amounts you are to reimburse us with at the time of payment if requested. 

Fifth, commission.—In consideration of the above you agree to pay us per cent 
commission on actual cost price of the cargo landed in Shanghai. Thanking you to 
confirm the above. 

We are, dear sir, very truly, yours. 

(Signed) Andrews & George, 

J. H. Ranger, Manager. 

Andrews & George, present. 

Dear Sirs: The above is in accordance with my understanding of my purchase 
of old metal through you and I obligate myself to carry out the agreement as set forth. 

Very truly, yours, 

Chop. (Nee Chang Mow.) 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


257 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 10.] 

On April 23, 1902, the first cargo of 7,500 poods was forwarded to Shanghai by the 
Russo-Chinese Bank at Port Arthur. 90% of the contract price of the copper and brass 
said to be contained therein had been paid prior to the shipment. The represent¬ 
atives of Andrews & George and of Nee Chang Mow protested against this shipment, 
and declined to receive it as under the contract. About April 27th, 1902, the second 
and final cargo was ready for shipment and Mr. Chang Mow testifies that he inspected 
and agreed to receive 10 cars of it subject to a discount of 10% for lead and dirt. Mr. 
Comstock and Mr. von Fischerz testify that Mr. Chang Mow agreed to receive all of 
the second cargo subject to 10% discount. The second cargo was shipped on April 
30 and a draft was drawn for rubles 69,132.11, as per the following bill. 


(Exhibit K.) 


Port Arthur, North China, 

April SO, 1902 . 

Messrs. Nee Chang Mow, Dr. to Andrews and George. 


Copper. 3, 850 poods 10 lbs. 

Less 10%. 385 poods as brass. 


@ Rs. 6 per pood 20,791.50: 

10% copper as brass. 

1st shipment April. 

2nd shipment on 30th April 


3,465 poods 10 lbs. 

385 poods. 

3, 649 poods 30 lbs. 
6, 567 poods 10 lbs. 


10, 602 poods at Rs. 4. 35. 

Brass, per pood, 46,118 70: 

Freight on, say, 221 tons, at M. $3.00 per ton, M. $663.00@exchange 
123f. 535. 76 


Commission, 


67, 445. 96 
1, 686.15 


E. & O. E 


Rs. 69,132.11 


(Exhibit L.) E. & O. E. 

Same as above. 

(Exhibit M.) 

Mr. Nee Chang Mow, Dr., to the Russo-Chinese Bank, B. R.: Rbls., No. 31, Port 
Arthur Branch No. 582. 


To your acceptance, due 14/7/1902: Taels. 

Rbls. 69,132.11, at lll=Shanghai tls. 62, 281.18 

Interest, at 7%, from 30/4 to 25/8=117 days. 1, 397. 49 1 


Balance due. 33, 678. 67 


9997—13--17 



















258 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER, 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 11.] 


Taels. 

^To paid Butterfield and Swire, boat hire on shells, 26/5. 63.16 

To paid American consul for protesting draft $6.10. 4. 57 

To paid Russian consul for protesting draft Rbls. 208.89. 187. 75 

To paid for survey report, fire insurance, telegrams, and sundry charges... 389. 81 


(Received payment) Shanghai tls. 64, 323. 96 


This was paid on August 26th, and both cargoes received by Nee Chang Mow. In 
the meantime, Friede had brought suit in Port Arthur for the unpaid 10% of the first 
cargo; and Mr. Comstock, plaintiff’s witness, testifies that Mr. Chang Mow agreed that 
the discount to be taken on the second cargo should be fixed by the decision of the 
Russian court as to the first cargo. It is testified that the lower court has decided 
against Friede, who has appealed, and the appeal has not yet been decided. 

The plaintiff sues for damages under the contract and files the following bill of 
^particulars: 

BILL OF PARTICULARS. 

The plaintiff, through the defendants’ false and fraudulent representations which 
the defendants knew at the time to be false and fraudulent, and which the defendants 
made with the intent to defraud the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs claim and allege that they 
are damaged to the amount of the items severally following, to wit: 

Taels. 

No. 1. The difference between the false invoice to wit: Roubles 4.35, the 
defendants’ alleged price paid for brass per pood for 10,000 poods, and the 
actual cost price of same, to wit: Roubles 4.25, making roubles 1,000, 


equaling. 945.00 

No. 2. Difference between invoice weight and surveyed weight of copper 
and brass cargo, showing 15 per cent of dirt, lead, and other foreign 

substances. 8, 974. 66 

No. 3. Difference in exchange on due date of draft and date of payment of 

same... 898.63 

No. 4. Extra interest at 7 per cent owing to draft not being taken up by 

due date. 514.59 

No. 5. Cables, insurance, protesting draft, and other expenses charged by 

Russo-Chinese Bank. 321.33 












CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


259 


[Exhibit No. 8. page 12.] 

No. 6. Two months’ extra storage of cargo during the time said cargo was 

lying in dispute. 

No. 7. Expenses of survey made by Sam el H. Shorrock. 

No. 8. Overcharge on freight, petties, and ins: ranee. 

No. 9. A fraudulent and false charge of the said defendants for alleged bar¬ 
gain money, which the plaintiffs believing the said false and fraudulent 
representations to be true, paid the same and which the defendants have 

not returned. 

No. 10. Coolie hire at survey and watching cargo. 

No. 11. Damage sustained by plaintiffs in not being able to dispose of the 

said cargo upon its arrival in Shanghai. 

No. 12. Amount lost by plaintiffs through the dirt, lead, and other foreign 
substances in copper and brass, which a customer of said plaintiffs de¬ 
clined to take on account of the said foreign s ibstances and because of the 
fall in the price of copper and brass, at the time of this contract with said 

plaintiff’s customer. 

No. 13. The difference between the stipulated agreement made by the 
defendants, to wit: “Cargo to be delivered in bags in good shipping con¬ 
dition and marked so as to be plainly disting; ished between copper and 
brass,” and the act al condition in which the cargo was delivered to the 
plaintiffs, to wit: The cargo was packed indiscriminately, the brass and 
copper put together instead of separately.*. 


Taels. 


233.20 
150.00 
293.73 


3, 000.00 
50.00 


10, 000. 00 


1, 500.00 


2 , 000 . 00 


28, 881.14 

The defendant admitted an overcharge of taels 900, and deposited in court $1,195.00 
(taels 900@754) on Nov. 18th and $91.14 (taels 68.62@.7461) on Nov. 19th. The 
other claims of the bill of particulars are combated. 

After patient hearing and consideration of the testimony and argument, the co ,T rt 
agrees with the contention of plaintiff in specification No. 1 of the bill of particulars. 
It is admitted that a fraud was committed on plaintiff by defendant in that a false 
copy of the contract between Andrews and George and Friede was given to plaintiff, 
on which he was charged and paid rubles 1,060.20 over and above the true price. He 
also paid 2\% commission in the above overcharge, equaling rubles 26.50. He has 
also paid 7 % interest on this amo' nt from April 30th, 1902, to date (9 months), equaling 
rubles 57.05; making a total under specification 1 of r bles 1,143.75 (taels 1,030.40). 
Under specification 8 it appears that the freight, etc. (Ex. K) was 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 13.] 

tls. 535.76. It appears charged under Ex. B 2 as rubles 967.13 which at 111 equals 
tls. 871.29, or an overcharge of tls. 335.53 with interest at 7% from April 30th to date 
(taels 17.61) equals tls. 353.14. 

Under Specification IX it appears that tls. 3,000 was deposited by plaintiff as bargain 
money under the contract with Friede. It was not so deposited by Andrews & 
George; but Andrews & George put in a counter claim of expenses incurred by order 
of Nee Chang Mow in defending the suit of Friede above referred to; of which counter¬ 
claim tls. 2,062.29 was allowed by the agreed upon accountant, making a balane due, 
Nee Chang Mow of tls. 937.71 and 7% interest from April 30th, 1902 (tls. 49.23) 
totaling tls. 986.94. 

Under the specification II it appears that plaintiff has paid to defendant rubles 
6,691.02@lll=tls. 6,027.95, for which amount Friede is suing Andrews & George, 
who are in that suit acting as agents for plaintiff. 

While defendant holds this sum, it is in the nature of a guaranty and must stand 
without any award regarding it until the outcome of the suit of Friede vs. Andrews and 

George is seen. . , 

The court therefore finds for plaintiff in the sum of taels 2,370.48, with interest at 
7% from Jan 1st, 1903. Judgment is withheld for an accounting of the sum of tls. 
6,027.95 until the suit of Friede vs. Andrews & George at Port Arthur is decided. 
Court costs to be paid by defendant. 

Jan. 1, 1903. . . T ~ 

(Sgd.) John Goodnow, 

Consul General , Acting Judicially. 

Assented to: 

(Sgd.) Robt. H. Hunt, 

(Sgd.) Harry de Gray, 

Associates. 











( U(. 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


260 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 14.] 

In the U. S. Consular Court, Shanghai , China , ss: 

I do hereby certify that I have compared the preceding with a certain judgment 
recorded in this court and do certify that the same is a correct transcript therefrom 
and of the whole of the said judgment. 

In testimony whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal at the city 
of Shanghai, this 23rd day of October, 1911. 

T. C. White, 

Cleric United States Consular Court. 

Court fees: 

Affixing seal. G. $0. 20 

Certification. 1- 00 


G. 1. 20 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 15.] 

United States Court for China, 
Shanghai , Nov. 6, 1911. 

Nee Chang Mow v. Andrews & George. In equity. Petition for writ of ne exeat 

and for discovery. 

JUDGMENT. 

The complainant to proceeding by a bill in equity. (1) He seeks enforcement of 
a judgment alleged to have been rendered in the American consular court at Shanghai, 
China, on January 8, 1903; (2) he seeks an accounting for a certain sum of money, 
alleged to be due from defendants to the complainant and which the consular court, 
it is alleged, recites as being the subject of suit between another party and 

[Exhibit No. 8, page 16.] 

refuses to make any award pending said; (3) he prays for writ ne exeat republica. 

After filing original bill' and after filing of answer by defendants and in absence of 
objection from defendants, complainant was allowed to file an amended bill to which 
defendants have demurred. First as to amount covered by alleged judgment (Tls. 
2,370.48 with interest and costs) it is not alleged that execution was ever had, or 
attempted to be had. If judgment was obtained as alleged, it was rendered in the 
American 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 17.] 

Consular Court, which caurt at that time had presumably full jurisdiction and con¬ 
tinued to have full jurisdiction for about three years thereafter until the United States 
Court for China was created on June 30, 1906, at which time the Consular Court was 
deprived of jurisdiction in a civil cause where the amount involved exceeded five 
hundred gold dollars. Execution not having been had in the trial court and that 
court meantime having lost jurisdiction by reason of the amount involved, it probably 
follows that any further proceedings in 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 18.] 

the matter would have to be taken in this court. The action of this court would 
wholly depend upon the case as presented. It is fundamental that action for recovery 
of judgment is one at law. It is clear to the court that the plaintiff’s remedy in this 
case is on the law side of the court involving a simple action in debt. Certainly no 
ground is laid in the bill which satisfies the court that the remedy at law on this 
judgment will be inadequate. Second, as to amount alleged to have 





CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


261 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 19.] 

been paid to defendants by the complainant, it appears not to have been embraced 
in the judgment. So far as the bill discloses, the amount claimed is for a certain 
amount of money alleged to have been paid to the defendants by the complainant. 
It would appear that the remedy would be in an action at law, although the allegations 
made in reference thereto are insufficient to admit of any specific holding on that 
point. The court is satisfied on the averments made in the bill that, whatever 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 20.] 

remedy may be appropriate for this item, whether at law or in equity, a bill in equity- 
joining this item of claim with a judgment claim is fatally defective. Third, it 
follows that no case is presented upon which the court can grant a writ ne exeat repub- 
lica. 

As affecting the action of the court on this demurrer, consideration has been given 
to the fact that nearly nine years have been allowed by the claimant to elapse since 
judgment in the consular court, without execution. While it is possible that claim¬ 
ants’ legal rights may not be 


[Exhibit No. 8, page 21.] 

barred by this long delay, much delay breeds staleness and tends to minimize ground 
upon which to appeal to the conscience of the court. The demurrer is sustained. 
The bill is dismissed. 


262 


CHARGES AGAINST RUFUS H. THAYER. 


[Exhibit No. 9, page 1.] 

United States Court for China. 

CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER OF COURT ADMITTING GEORGE F. CURTIS TO PRACTICE AS AN 
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW. 

[Exhibit No. 9, page 2.] 

In the United States Court for China, at Shanghai, July, 1909. 

[Copy of order of court admitting George F. Curtis to practice as an attorney and counselor at law.] 

Rokkosan, Japan, July 28, 1909. 


ORDER. 

Whereas, Mr. George Franklin Curtis, a citizen of the United States, has applied for 
admission to the bar of the United States Court for China and has presented grounds 
for granting him an early examination which appeal strongly to the consideration of 
the court and which have induced the presiding judge to personally examine the 
applicant, notwithstanding che fact that court is in vacation, and has passed a satis¬ 
factory examination: 

It is ordered that, upon presenting himself to the clerk of the court and taking the 
usual oath, he shall be duly received and enrolled as a member of the bar of this court. 

Rufus H. Thayer, 

Judge of the United States Court for China. 


[Exhibit No. 9, page 3.] 

In the United States Court for China, at Shanghai, August, 1909. 

CERTIFICATE OF COPY. 

I, F. E. Hinckley, clerk of the United States Court for China, hereby certify that 
I have compared with the original, of record in the registry of the court, a copy of a docu¬ 
ment hereto attached under seal of court, namely, “United States Court for China. 
Order of court admitting George F. Curtis to practice as an attorney and counselor at 
law, dated July 28, 1909,” and that I find the same to be a true copy and of the whole 
of said original. 

Witness the seal of court with my hand hereunto set at Shanghai, China, August 
second, 1909. 

[seal.] F. E. Hinckley, 

Clerk of Court. 


INDEX. 


P a ge. 

Absent without leave 16^ mohths in about 3 years. 85 86 87 89 

Absence, summary of. . ’ ’g^’gg 

Department of State did not grant.. ’87 

Letter from Mr. John Bassett Moore ... 87 

American Surety Co., judgment suffered by default.127 

Andrews, Von Fischertz & George, attorneys, Nee Chang Mow.. 108,109,110, 111 , 112 
As judgment debtor, said Andrews permitted to leave jurisdiction of court 

to avoid payment of judgment. 108-112 

Certified copy of said judgment. 255-260 

Copy of judgment dismissing suit on said judgment. 260 

Bailey, Hon. Warren W., examination of Mr. Curtis. 40, 48, 51 58 

Blanchard, William, estate of.’ 138 

Broussard, Hon. Robert F., examination of Mr. Curtis by. 3 

Broussard, Hon. Robert F. (chairman), reads rule of House of Representatives, 

section 42, to show the jurisdiction of committee. 3 

Also inserts into Record copy of act creating United States court for China. 7 
Also section of treaty with China giving United States jurisdiction in that 

country. 9 

Broussard, Hon. Robert F., examination of A. O. Latham. 65-74 

Business, lack of judicial, for United States court in China. 11 

Carr, Wilbur J. 37 

Cases and authorities cited : 

34 Statutes at Large, 814. 

Ex parte Shaffenberg, 4 Dillon, 271; Federal cases No. 12696, vol. 21, p. 1144. 
United States v. Ingraham, 155 U. S., 434. 

United States v. Dimmick, 116 Fed. Rep., 825. 

North China Herald, June 26, 1909, p. 754; Sept. 25, 1909, p. 750; July 1 , 1910, 
p. 60; Sept. 23, 1910, p. 752; Apr. 22,1911, p. 252; Nov. 14,1911, p. 122; May 18, 
1912, p. 509; June 1 , 1912, p. 630; Oct. 5, 1912, p. 59; Mar. 24, 1911, p. 743. 
United States Consular Regulations, 1896, section 544. 

United States Criminal Code, section 35. 

18 Opinions Attorney General, 463, interpreting section 3678, Revised Statutes. 
Digest of Appropriations, 1912, p. 56. 

United States Revised Statutes, sections 3678, 1706, 3743, 787, 1709, 1710, 1711. 
Numerous other cases cited under Law Notes, following specifications. 

Catholic clergy, attack on, in decision rendered by the United States court for 
China, seeking to sustain its usurped probate jurisdiction. Re-probate will 

John Pratt Roberts. 233-239 

Charges against R. H. Thayer by resolution of committee referred to Judiciary 
Committee of the House of Representatives, and also to the Committee on 

Expenditures in the Department of State. 77 

Charges of high crimes and misdemeanors against R. H. Thayer.81-140 

Charges, summary of. 44, 45 

China Realty Co. 99 

Cleveland, Pearl, estate. 127 

Coldren, Mr. 60, 61, 62, 63 

Collenwood, George, case of. 114 

Crampton, Hon. Louis C., examination of Mr. Curtis by, 13 et seq.: 

Examination of Mr. A. O. Latham. 71 

Cunningham v. Consul General Rodgers (171 Fed. Rep., 835). 128 

Curtis, George F., statement of. 3-64 

Darrah, John M., postal agent: 

Conspiracy to render false accounts of postal agency. 94, 95, 96, 97, 99 

Charge of perjury against, in rendering quarterly accounts. 95 

Davies, J. B., United States clerk of court, conspiracy to render false accounts 

of rent of buildings. 94 


263 

































264 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Dorsey, W. Roderick, vice consul general, conspiracy to render false accounts 

for rent of buildings....-; - - ^6 

Dugal, R. S., employee of Andrews & George, offers to bet, while suit pending 
against his employers, that it is impossible to recover on the judgment against 
them, intimating bribery. IJ-jj 

Exhibits. 143-262 

No. 1, certified accounts and letters under seal of Department of Treasury. 143-218 

No. 2, certified documents under seal of Department of State. 219-232 

No. 3, re-probate will of John Pratt Roberts... 233 

No. 4, certified copy of docket, case of Miss Fisher (Tusher). 240-241 

No. 4A, petition for writ of habeas corpus... 242 

No. 4B, complimentary article on Miss Tusher in the San Francisco Dra¬ 
matic News..... # - ; . 242 

No. 5, certified copy of docket and transcript of record Tze Hai Ching v. 

Chas. A. Biddle. 241-249 

No. 6, receipt of fees for issuing writ of execution..... 250 

No. 6A, letter transmitting $35 for fee for another writ of execution and 

receipt for same. 250-251 

No. 7, complaint filed against John M. Darrah by 0. E. Laura. 252 

No. 8, certified copy of case of Nee Chang Mow v. Andrews & George... 253-261 
No. 9, certified copy of certificate and order of court made in Japan ad¬ 
mitting George F. Curtis to practice law in China... 262 

Extraterritorial jurisdiction of United States Court for China. 9 

Faulkner, Frederick C., case of. 114 

Convicted on felony charge without jury. 116 

Notes on law and facts. 116-118 

Ferguson, Hon. Harvey H., examination of Mr. Curtis by. 10 et seq. 

Fletcher, Henry P. 114 

Fowler, John, consul. 127 

Hadley, Frank W. 84 

Hadley, Frank W., conspiracy to render false accounts for rent. 96 

Conspiracy to prevent Miss Fisher (Miss Tusher) leaving China. 101 

Hansen, George C., vice consul. 96 

Hart, Hon.-, examination of Mr. Curtis by. 4, 5, 6 

Hearings before the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Justice: 

Sept. 15, 1913. 3-19 

Sept. 17, 1913.,.. 21-46 

Sept. 19, 1913. 47-64 

Sept. 20, 1913. 65-78 

Hinckley. F. E.. district attorney to United States court for China, not a lawyer. 10 
In collusion with said Thayer to render fa’se accounts acting as clerk of 
said court. (See Exhibit No. 1.) 

Hughes, Hon. William, United States Senator from New Jersey, bill to provide 

that consuls having judicial duties shall be experienced lawyers. 140 

Jail, United States, in Shanghai. 100 

Expenses.of prison, $4,400. 100 

Cheap Sikh Indian jailer on duty, instead of American jailer or his assist¬ 
ant. 100 

Johnson, Nelson T., vice consul and judge of consular court, unlawful and cor¬ 
rupt denial of process of that court to plaintiff after plaintiff had duly filed 

his case with clerk of that court and paid all court fees demanded_ 107, 243-248 

Latham, A. O., statement of.,. 65-7’6 

McNally, J. C., United States consul, letter from, volunteering to corroborate 

Mr. Curtis on judicial matters... 51 

Moore, Hon. John Bassett, letter from, to George F. Curtis. 11 

In full. 229-232 

Murray, E. H., court stenographer, unlawfully acting as administrator of estate. 137 

Nee Chang Mow v. Andrews & George. 58 

Certified judgment in favor of plaintiff. 255-260 

Suit on said judgment on, and its dismissal by said Thayer. 253-260 

New York Sun’s article “A scandal east of Suez”. 139 

Peirce, H. D., report on consulates in the Orient. 58 

Roberts, re probate will of John Pratt. 233-239 















































INDEX. 


265 

Page. 

during said time obtaining from the Government $5,333.10 on false vouchers, 

etc. 81-82 

Summary under. 85 

Notes on the law and facts under. 82-85 

Specification No. 2. 86 

Notes on law and facts under... 86-89 

Specification No. 3, false claims and vouchers for alleged actual and necessary 

personal expenses on circuit to Canton. 89, 90 

Notes on law and facts under. 90-92 

Summary of said expenses. 92 

Specification No. 4, false and fictitious vouchers for rent of building for court.. 93-94 

Summary under, for rents. 100,101 

Specification No. 5, unlawfully and corruptly denying a writ of habeas corpus. 101 

Also writ of ne exeat. 104-112 

Facts leading up to. 102 

Notes on law and facts. 103-104 

Specification No. 6. malfeasance in office in intimidating attorney not to file a 

criminal action against an ex-official of the United States Court for China_ 113 

Notes on law, facts, and similar acts. 113-115 

Faulkner & Collin wood cases. 114 

Specification No. 7, unlawful usurpation of province of jury in case of trial of 

American citizen charged with a felony. 116 

Notes on law and facts. 116-118 

Specification No. 8, falsely representing Frank E. Hinckley to Secretary of 
; State as a well-equipped lawyer for the office of district attorney, knowing 

him not to be a lawyer. 119 

Specification No. 9, unlawfully usurping a probate jurisdiction. 120 

Notes on law and facts under. 120-139 

Rodgers, James L., consul general, unlawful usurpation of a probate jurisdic¬ 
tion in the Cunningham estate case. 128 

Summary of absence. 85, 89 

Summary of amounts unlawfully demanded and paid. 93 

Summary of charges against R. H. Thayer... 44, 45 

Tavenner, Hon. Clyde H., examination of Mr. Curtis. 26 et seq. 

i Examination of Mr. A. O. Latham. 71, 72 

ftze Hai Ching v. Chas. A. Biddle. 105 

Confession of judgment. 105 

Refusal of marshal to execute writ of execution on said judgment. 105 

False return of writ. 105 

Refusal of clerk to issue alias writ. 105 

Denial of process of United States Consular Court to plaintiff, by T. Trussler 

Johnson, after accepting court fees. 107 

Exhibit No. 5. 248 

I Transcript of record.-. 243-248 

White, T. C., marshal of consular court, arrests Miss Fisher. 101 

Wilder, Amos P., consul general, conspiracy to render false accounts for rent 


Conspiracy to render false accounts for expenses United States jail. 100 

Gross neglect of duty in not preserving estates of Americans. 125 

Williams, Hon. John Sharp, resolution of inquiry. 127 

Wilson, D. A., jr., United States marshal, conspiracy to render false accounts for 

rent of buildings. 94 

id 
11 
m. 

86 
o;->£ 

86 

es- 


o 
































































































. 

' 














. 




























* 


■ 













. 









* 



























